Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:27, 11 December 2007 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,078 edits →Tweety21: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 17:27, 11 December 2007 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,078 edits →protected edits Criticism of Misplaced Pages: WR's pet admin reverted already.Next edit →
Line 393: Line 393:
* He's got more deleted articles to his credit than anyone else I know. He started off copy-pasting obituaries, then paraphrasing them; lots of them are small-town types and he keeps citing his own master's dissertation as a source. He's wasting a lot of time but not listening to people who are trying to help him not to make the same mistake over and over again. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) * He's got more deleted articles to his credit than anyone else I know. He started off copy-pasting obituaries, then paraphrasing them; lots of them are small-town types and he keeps citing his own master's dissertation as a source. He's wasting a lot of time but not listening to people who are trying to help him not to make the same mistake over and over again. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


== protected edits ] ==


Hi Guy, I saw you've twice edited this in a content manner since it was protected. I thought this was only allowed in situations where the edits were supported, and the editing person was not involved? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 07:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:I have to agree, you really shouldn't be editing this especially given the circumstances leading up to the protection. ] (]) 09:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:: It was pointed out in IRC and email that one word needed to be changed for NPOV. Actually the whole sentence needs to go. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::But that is not an administrative decision. That is a content decision which will be decided by discussion on the talk page. Will you be able to revert your edit, as you're involved on this page, and should not be doing content edits under protection? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I had actually made a similar NPOV edit to that sentence , which JzG then reverted as part of one of his blanket reverts. Given that he was part of the edit war prior to protection, it's not proper for him to do any editing to it during protection. ] (]) 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Dan, I hadn't seen that one edit. No one should be making content edits like that without Talk consensus under protection... Guy, would you mind reversing? I actually happen to agree with you here on the wording, but it's not appropriate to do that edit unilaterally, and it should be someone other than you anwyay as you're involved. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::: It's one word. It said "reported", but it was "alleged" as "reported implies accuracy. If I went with what I want the whole sentence would come out, since the story puts Cla68's side of the story but there is no independent source for anything and no source at all for the other side of the story. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::: To correct a possible mis-impression, my version of the edit was done before the page was protected (as it had to be, given that I'm not an admin). ] (]) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


==Tweety21== ==Tweety21==

Revision as of 17:27, 11 December 2007


R       E       T       I       R       E        D
This user is tired of silly drama on Misplaced Pages.

I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Content of Misplaced Pages, December 2007

Cypri

We may have another problem related to that issue, and articles that link there. Next time we're both on IRC, remind me, and I'll explain. DS 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In the middle of all the other drama...

I know you have been busy with all that is going on and may have missed the NPA stuff. I have been playing with the wording of the proposal on WT:NPA and made a bit of a radical proposal at the bottom. I would like to know your opinion on both to see where we can go from here. Thanks!

And if I was still living in the DC area, I would most definitely come up to have a beer with you in Philly. Cheers spryde | talk 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is one way to comment :) Instead of adding the "not acceptable" phrasing, could the section be moved to the "never acceptable" section up top? I will copy this comment over to WT:NPA. spryde | talk 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I sincerely hope this solves the issue once and for all and it is not exploited nor abused. spryde | talk 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You never know your luck. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your archiving at ANI

I really don't think that was a helpful action which will do anything to lower the temperature. Could you consider reverting yourself? Physchim62 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I really really don't think you want to reopen that can of worms. Seriously. Some of your recent actions have raised eyebrows, and pressing for the continuation of that debate is very unlikely to help anything. That battle is already raging in one or two places, let it reach its natural conclusion. If you consider there is genuine cause for concern you are welcome to try WP:RFAR, but I see a number of contributors to that debate who would not come out of an arbitration well. Better to let it drop, I think. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Semblances of Sovereignty

JzG, I am trying to find out why this article was deleted. Also, Is there anyway to find the article in wiki now that it has been deleted. Thanks (Lew Basnight IV (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Woops I didnt see your note at the beginning

You said beer as in beard hole in Oslo? Just kidding... But I am serious about its deletion... LoL... just teasing... No I am serious.... hahaha... No. Seriously (Lew Basnight IV (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Nattering nabobs of negativity

The civility-above-all-else crowd is getting restless. It may be wise to file off some of the rough edges so as to deny them ammunition (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AN notification

It's only courteous to inform people when something is posted on AN, so I'm just directing you to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal Attacks by JzG where someone has started a discussion about you. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)



RWI?

Could you briefly clarify on your evidence this means "Real World Information" (I think?)? It took me a bit long to figure this out, and I'm usually pretty quick. I had at first thought you meant some User:RWI, i.e. yet another sock. -- Kendrick7 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

James Randi

Thanks for going ahead and deleting that bit about the sex scandal on the talk page. I was unsure whether it could just be eliminated all together. Glad to see we can delete such trolling. I just wish that the particular user would just stay away. Happy Thanksgiving! Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. Sambure (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. It might help if you were to give people some context - this is clearly not your first day on Misplaced Pages. There are suspicions. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect

If you'd kindly unprotect my "sockproblems" page, I'd like to db-userreq it. Thanks. Precious Roy (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The True Values about being Hip in New York

What's all this swindling-gibbering talk about wikipedia policies against articles that contain the word Hip within them

For doing what few have the balls to do:

The Golden Wiki
Going above and beyond most people and protecting Misplaced Pages, the 💕 and supporting the few users/bots who do the most unpleasant and thanksless, but never the less important tasks, I award a rare gift The Golden Wiki for this β 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I, as always, appreciate your work on Misplaced Pages, Guy, and always look up to you to provide inspiration to me and the countless other contributors to the 'pedia! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
yay!!!SqueakBox 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:JzG/help

Dunno if you've seen it, but you got 3 messages there (including a barnstar, woot!) -- lucasbfr 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Block

Guy, can you explain this block? Videmus Omnia 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings arbitration

Left a suggestion on the workshop page.... inspired by those TV documentaries on the police forces! --Solumeiras 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

Your edit to Bernard d'Abrera, citing OTRS ticket 2007080210005311, appears to be problematic under both WP:RS & WP:NPOV. I have posted detailed concerns at Talk:Bernard d'Abrera#WP:BLP. HrafnStalk 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova/Jehochman arbitration

I noticed your section on posting of private correspondence, and I believe you might be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence. I don't think anyone got sanctioned for posting email, but the editor who did it had already requested desysopping and left Misplaced Pages. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ann Coulter

Thanks for providing a link to the original Ikkyu2 material. I added some stuff that guides readers to the meat of his comment.

I never really liked linking to WR, so this is an improvement, even though it requires a bit of work to see his comment. There's some good stuff over there, and I used to go there every day, but I got tired of the constant negativity. (I kind of remember seeing the occasional mention of JZG over there -- sometimes they pick on the wrong people. <vbg>) Lou Sander (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, yes. Overall I am in favour of linking to the source of truth rather than some commentary on the truth that may be - how to put this? - designed to promote a particular interpretation. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP deletion

Yes, the submitter an obvious sock, prob the same as the one that submitted the first one that was oversighted, but it's way more complicated than that. I'll get to the bottom. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

I expanded music torture. Your opinion please as to whether you still think an article on the topic merits deletion.

I remember we have interacted before. I am hazy on the details. Do you remember if I was correct to write that you had been generous and helpful? If so thanks again.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, even if I am misremembering you being helpful in the past, best wishes in the present anyway. Geo Swan 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed it - was out of the country and using intermittent crappy wi-fi connections. Plus all the drama, of course. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Music City Legend Drum and Bugle Corps. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're still around... a problematic user page you unprotected

I would say that it looks like User:Callmebc is not using the unprotection of his userpage for constructive purposes. He's soapboxing, etc, and only digging a further hole. Would you consider declining the request and protecting the talk page again? The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat

Guy, Pat's driving me crazy. He's off on a we need four dicdef footnotes to prove that a ms is a millisecond is really one-thousandth of a second kick. He's also raised it at RfC and at WP:RSN.

I called him on the absurdity, but he's playing the 'how dare you threaten to block me, we have a content dispute' card. Can you talk some sense into him? He seems to listen to you more than most, and it would be good for the encyclopedia if he could be persuaded to put some of that boundless energy into something useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I go on making any brilliant proposals (which I fear may be mis-interpretated as some Pointy insult and lead to some sense that I'm trying to be disruptive) perhaps you would be so kind as to propose to user:TenOfAllTrades and I what steps you believe we should take to resolve this dispute? --CyclePat (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Step 1: You stop adding superfluous and ludicrously inappropriate sources to millisecond (as in milli- + second). Step 2: Dispute is resolved. Pleased to eb of service, Guy (Help!) 10:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Guy for the suggestion. However I don't agree with this. WorldNet defines inappropriate as "not in keeping with what is correct or proper; "completely inappropriate behavior"." To date I believe I have been keeping in line with the spirit, policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Simply take a look above the edit summary box which states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Perhaps you would be so kind as to indicate what exactly is superfluous (in excess of what is required) with the sources to which I want to add? (Notice: the correction I made to you accusatory tone in step 1 "You stop adding..." which lead people to believe that I am being disruptive in some editorial fashion.) Furthermore according to WorldNet "ludicrous" is defined as "incongruous; inviting ridicule "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework";". This being said, let us assume you are correct in saying that adding references, despite the fact that when there are no references this is a violation of WP:V, to the article millisecond is, as you say, "ludicrous". I would put it to you, in light of the definition that you are lacking good faith and falling into the trap. This is because the definition states "inviting to ridicule", which means being "ridiculizing" (or bullying). In this case TenOfAllTrades would be considered the bully ridiculizing my good faith attempts to add the references which are conform to wikipedia's policies.
Maybe it's not the references themself but the amount of references? If this is the case, I would understand. That is why I've post a compromise for user:TenOfAllTrades that we only have 2 references instead of 4. So what exactly is "ludicrously inappropriate" with the sources I added to the article millisecond, where then removed by TenOfAllTrades, and now, to which we discuss?
In light of the fact that I don't quite agree with your method, I ask you again, what steps do you think we should take to resolve this issues?
p.s: On a secondary issue: When you look at the definition of milli- it states in that article that it's 1/1000. However when you read the second sentence it then states that the prefix's etymology means 1000. Is it 1000 or 1/1000? How can this be verified? Where are the sources? --CyclePat (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
p.p.s: I just noticed the addition you made to the article millisecond regarding milli-... etc... I'm happy to see this contribution. --CyclePat (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent for my pleasure...) Mind moving the talk page as well? It seems to be splitbrained right now. spryde | talk 16:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know... you can say it... "I'm a WP:DICK". Thank you again for your interest in what is happening. --CyclePat (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, at least you have a sense of humour about it :-) Guy (Help!) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

psi research

hi guy: when you get a chance, perhaps you could do a quick NPOV check on Early psi research at SRI, which was added recently. i'm not sure whether to link to it from the main remote viewing page, which is rather a mess at the moment. but since you've been monitoring that page, i thought perhaps you might like to do the relevant linking. thanx! jxm (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

McMoneagle

Joe McMoneagle was awarded the Legion of Merit for his RV work. Whether you like it or not does not matter. It is a fact. Did you ever check it out? Or do you just believe things that make you happy? I did check it out. Mc Moneagle was a remote viewer for almost 20 years in experimental intelligence operations to gather information no one else could furnish. That is why the medal was awarded. Kazuba (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • So, like I said, link the citation and let people make up their own minds. Otherwise we have to use scare quotes to make it clear that RV does not have any objective validity, and the obsessive fans of RV really hate that. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:LauraLove

Hey, sorry about that block/unblock thing. I asked Ioeth to let me do it and I thought I had. I went through the steps, hit the button, then flashed back to a different tab and posted the block message. IRC cvn-wp-en alerted me to the block by you, so I go check, system error, my block did not go through! Ha. Anyway, sorry for the confusion. Lara❤Love 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP

I already know.

Anyway, though, I checked the BLP policy again and there are restrictions for public figures, so the deletion of my post is justified. WhisperToMe 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I started a talk section about "involuntary public figures" at BLP - Maybe more restrictions should be placed on involuntary public figures than voluntary public figures in terms of BLP: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Voluntary_public_figures_vs._involuntary_public_figures WhisperToMe 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo / WP:NPA

Dear Guy, Thank you for your quick reply. Let me observe that I brough to the attention the following text on User:Moldopodo page: "My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76." It is right in bold there. IMHO, suggesting I have anything to do with a banned user or with vandalism, is a form of PA. Same goes for the things Moldopodo implies in his answer that you saw. About the other issues, I agree with you, the better place is dispute resolution. However, I respectfully insist that the sentence I mentioned by removed from this user's page. (I asked him, but he refuses to answer.) Thank you for your assistence.:Dc76\ 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Early psi research at SRI‎ AfD

Thanks for this feedback. I'll scope it out and change my opinion accordingly. Pete.Hurd 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: boggles the mind, The men who stare at goats Jon Ronson's book about the First Earth Battalion was a jaw dropping read, highly recommended. (even though it left unanswered my question of whether these people expect that when a special forces soldier walks through a wall, that his clothes & gear will also make the trip through...) Cheers, Pete.Hurd 06:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wales

Thanks for the note. My edit history might look strange but that's because I only log in when I need to edit a protected entry. The vast majority of my edits are under whatever IP address I'm using at the moment. Why log in if you don't have to? Jhurlburt 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refrain from assuming too much

Not every account is what it seems. You are very presumptive to assume I have only a few hundred mainspace edits. Have you ever stopped to consider why Durova's block of !! angered me so much? Anyway, you're very emotional about all of this. Perhaps you should retract your angry, bitter message on my talkpage? Mr Which 13:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The thing is, I am not very happy about the current trend for using sockpuppets to engage in contentious policy debate. For better or worse, Giano edits only as Giano and any crap he gets attaches to the reputation of Giano. People who choose to use another account for argufying causes, unfairly disadvantage those who are prepared to stand up and be counted. My statement on your talk was a plain statement of fact: I would be much more able to take your words at face value if you used your usual account. I suspect that we would agree on moist things, given your userboxes, and one fo the things Occam's Razor suggests to me is that people who are in good standing in the community are rarely in need of concealing their identity in order to join in an argument. I happen to think that the loss of transparency caused by the present tendency to use sockpuppets for argument is rather corrosive. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not what I'm doing. This is not a sock any longer. That's all I'll say. If you wish to know who I am, e-mail me, and I'll tell you. Honestly, I don't think I ever crossed paths with you in my previous WP existence. Mr Which 16:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Bravo

Thank you very much.Thanks. 85.5.180.9 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, could you kindly erase this redirect to the same article? Thx in advance. I tried to do it myself (I deleted the redirect) but deleting the title - I could not do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/Timothy_A._Hill_%28U.S._congressional_press_secretary%29

85.5.180.9 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Sorry to bother, but can you please encourage this Crum375 to stop nagging me to make an Arbcom case? This is highly inappropriate, and really not their proper business whatsoever. Thanks much. 85.5.180.9 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It was you who moved it. This person has been pestering me to no end. Two pages worth of nagging.  :/ 85.5.180.9 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Ok, now I see what you are talking about. I dont really have thetime for this, but I will state some corroborating information related to that post. I had no idea what he/she was talking about. I thought Crum was talking about my comment on the article of Ruud Lubbers, not the Durova Arbcom case (and she called it an ANI, which completely confused me). The main point I sought to make was "inform better about COI" and to highlight the damage, which D participated in. But since Crum is going to make a federal case of it, then fine. I'll add the annotations as requested. Thanks for putting the edit there, and I'll follow up.

85.5.180.9 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please ask Crum375 to stop bothering me

He/she started out with accusations, non-stop nagging (and I had no idea you'd copied that passage to ANI, with my IP on it - but this person was so vague I had no idea what they were talking about. I thought it was a comment about Ruud Lubbers article). This person has been quite unkind, and tossing all kinds of accusations at me, and when the person refused to stop, I told them that their accusations and threats were bordering on harassment, and instead of leaving me alone, Crum375 threatened me with a block. Possibly the person is trying to provoke me so I can be blocked, or perhaps the person simply can't respect polite requests to be left alone. Please, if you can communicate that I want nothing more to do with this person, I'd be grateful. At this point, the person has stepped over the line. Thanks. 85.5.180.9 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I would like you to send me email, please - guy dot chapman at spamcop dot net. There are very good reasons why we do not need another witch hunt, equally there are good reasons why I would want to review evidence (as opposed to assertions based on interpretations of evidence) in some detail. I can help with the former, if I decide it's the latter I should at least be able to advise you how to avoid future problems. I don't think this conversation should be conducted on my talk page, though. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava

Thanks for trying to help with the content dispute but things just got a whole lot more interesting. Meatpuppetry galore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your endorsement of Perspicacite's position

Is this a correct statement of your position: at User talk:Kirill Lokshin?

Do you indeed endorse User:Perspicacite alias Jose João's position (not my own, which is that he should simply cease reverts and harassment of other editors) that an RfC would be a waste of time and that we should proceed directly to an ArbCom considering my conduct? Alice.S 09:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting at the "Tokelau ArbCom". One of the links you provided seems to be dead: "* Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Spam/COIReports/2007,_Oct_28 #216, possibly relevant" Alice.S 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy. I've been looking at the evidence you've presented in this case, and I noticed that you describe this edit as one that "removes great chunks of the article". It might look like that at first glance, but if you look closely, you will see that in fact what has happened to the article is exactly what the edit summary said (by which I mean the technicalities of what was added and removed - not whether the definition is indeed more precise, or whether it the edit eliminated "creationism" - I'm not going to get involved with that without reading a lot more deeply into the background) "Gave more precise definition of intellgient design, and eliminated "creationism" due to lack of reliable secondary source (source given was a public policy paper, which has partisan intentions)" The paragraph starting "The originator of irreducible complexity..." (which might be the big chunk you were referring to) is the same before and after the edit - ie. no change there. The change was to remove a reference (as the edit summary said), and to change the first definition sentence from this:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument intended to support intelligent design creationism and argue that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations.

to this:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument often used to support intelligent design, which posits that certain biological systems could not have developed incrementally through natural selection because they could not function without the simultaneous presence of multiple parts.

That doesn't look like removing "great chunks of the article" to me. Maybe you meant a different edit? Carcharoth 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Some other thoughts (I'll try and put these on the evidence talk page later): "very few people will be sufficiently up on the jargon to cite NPOV" - I wouldn't be so sure of this any more. Misplaced Pages has being going for over 6 years now, and NPOV has been one of its most widely quoted policies even off-wiki. Only last week, a popular British quiz show had a question asking what, in the context of Misplaced Pages, NPOV stood for. Seriously. have a look at what I wrote here. Carcharoth 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thirdly, you say "If an editor responds to a block with an indication that they understand the issue and will handle the dispute differently in future, then there is no reason not to unblock them." This presumes that a new editor will immediately read up on everything and give perfect answers to the blocking or reviewing admin. A more normal response, given human nature, is to get upset and aggrieved. Which normally results in the unblock request being denied. A potentially productive editor may have been lost. A culture of blocking that drives away new editors is one of the ways that Misplaced Pages could decline. Each successive generation of productive new editors will get smaller and smaller as it gets more self-selecting. When the volume falls below a critical level, Misplaced Pages will be in trouble. New editors learn best by experience, which crucially involves being able to edit Misplaced Pages (not trying to negotiate a shortening of an indefinite unblock). They are not going to learn how to handle themselves correctly after a few exchanges of posts on their talk page with a couple of admins. Discussion on article talk pages is how they will develop into an experienced editor, able to handle themselves. This is why I favour the philosophy of short blocks, and several second chances, with an indefinite block only coming after they have shown they will not change their ways, and crucially, being warned that the next block will be indefinite. Anything else means that inexperienced new users will be caught in the indefinite block net, and that will be damaging to the encyclopedia. The best of the new editors will try again with a new account, and do better the second time round. Some, though, will just give up. What would you have done if you had been blocked indefinitely after your first 20 or so contributions? Tried again or walked away? Carcharoth 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right about the summary, I'm a dunce. As to Hoffman, well, I see another POV-warrior coming in to right great wrongs. Intelligent design is creationism, the two are "one concept under God, indivisible". Guy (Help!) 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You'll get no argument from me there about ID and creationism being the same thing. In a way I wish this the whole ID thing had not been mixed up in this. To my mind, this is more about what should have been the correct way to handle this. The user was making perfectly adequate arguments, and was not verbose at all, in my opinion. What was needed was sensible engagement on the topic, rather than the ban-hammer being produced after such a short time. More worrying to my mind is the way some of those involved misrepresented things, both at ANI and in block log summaries. There was no ranting from Hoffman, and no rudeness either. Both of those accusations were levelled at him, along with others. The ANI discussion that basically went "Yeah, you were so right to block him. Hey! I've got an idea, why not just indef block him? Yeah! Great idea!!" still looks really bad. But this needs to be presented as evidence, not as an essay on your talk page! :-) Oh, well, there goes my hopes of voting early in the ArbCom elections... (I might just pick a few candidates to back and oppose early on, and then vote on the others later). Carcharoth 20:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. Everyone so far has been saying that MatthewHoffman is a new editor (me included). You said it in the following "a brand new editor...". But the account was created in October 2005! Why has it taken this long for anyone to spot this? It doesn't change my opinions, but I'm certainly not going to refer to Hoffman as a new user any more. Even if he lurked for 2 years (or maybe he went somewhere else for 2 years), he should have picked up on 3RR in that time. I'm decidedly ambivalent about this now. Carcharoth 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! Is that the time?! :-) ArbCom elections!! Tally ho! Carcharoth 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have email

Sent you a reply. Mr Which 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing links

You are removing a large number of links, including from a protected article. This is both disruptive and an abuse of your admin privileges. I would urge you to self-revert before I take this further. Sfacets 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased Edits

You edits seemed to be biased as List of Nairs has not deleted but List of Notable Ezhavas. Please stop this. you dont have right to be an administrator Tn pillai 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the accusations of bias, the two deleted pages are substantially different and not therefore G4 speedyable. Viridae 05:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
See here for all the List of Nairs discussions. I will say this once and want to make this absolutely clear.Tn pillai 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you got dragged into my fun. Been like this since I responded to a editprotect request in October. No good deed indeed .... -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
See here, and herefor all the List of Nairs discussions.Tn pillai 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian Conflict

Hello, saw your comment on Ricky's page. I'll try to give you a picture of what's going on. Nairs and Ezhavas form two "castes" in the South Indian state of Kerala. Kerala used to have a casteless society prior to the arrival of the Namboothiri Brahmins around AD 700. Buddhism was also prevalent in Kerala at this time. The Namboothiris imposed a caste system in Kerala, but this system was different from the usual four-tier caste-system in the rest of India. At the top were the Namboothiris, followed by Kshatriyas (Nairs who underwent a certain ceremony to become Kshatriyas), followed by Nairs, then Ezhavas, then things get a little hazy after this. Although Nairs fulfilled the role of "warriors" in Kerala after the arrival of the Namboothiris, they were still considered Sudras. Nairs ended up being rather powerful and became feudal chieftains and landlords. Ezhavas are believed to be Buddhists who initially resisted attempts at conversion to Buddhism by the Namboothiris. Certain sections of Ezhavas were Kalaripayattu trainers and physicians. Other sections practiced toddy-tapping, agriculture and other trades. I didn't grow up in India, so I am not entirely sure of the root of the animosity between Ezhavas and Nairs. Suffice to say that some level of animosity does exist. For example, members of these two castes do not intermarry. Ezhavas think Nairs are arrogant and are dwelling on the past to make themselves feel better and Nairs think Ezhavas have an inferiority complex. This is not what I personally think, because honestly, I really don't care. But this is the general idea between certain members of the community. Anyway, I started editing the Ezhava article, to try to clean it up, I was immediately attacked by a group of editors who assumed that because I was a Nair, I had some sort of agenda. Anyway, that's a brief synopsis of what's going on! --vi5in 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy - Re:Millisecond

Hi Guy
We bring up some interesting points at the talk:time (merger discussion). I will shotly be leaving a response on that talk page. --CyclePat 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Susana Lorenzo-Giguere

Susana Lorenzo-Giguere, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Susana Lorenzo-Giguere satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susana Lorenzo-Giguere and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Susana Lorenzo-Giguere during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

policy policy

I am somewhat concerned that the policy protection policy isn't well planned yet. The {{editprotected}} system is only well suited to simple edits to protected templates. As soon as the edit has any opposition, making the requested edit draws criticism for acting 'without consensus'. It occasionally leads to low-level wheel warring as others revert it. I say this as someone who regularly handles requested edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi Guy, happy you are back fighting the good fight! Quick request. User Taric25 has made what may be the worst ever sockpuppet accusation: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/TTN. The case should (and presumably will) be peremptorily dismissed. Meanwhile I reverted the sockpuppet tag placed on the user page, but have had it reverted. In your view is a user obliged to retain a sockpuppet warning once a claim has been filed, no matter that it is completely spurious and unsubstantiated? Sorry to bother you with this matter, but it shouldn't take more than 30s of your time. Eusebeus (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn RFC

I saw your RFC about Billy Hathorn. I am willing to help, not argue. Two AFDs are given as evidence of the dispute. However, the article (Glenn E. Ratcliff and another one) is deleted so I can't see it. Therefore, I cannot offer a fully informed opinion about Billy! Others may feel the same way but not let you know. If so, you won't get as many responses for the RFC. I am willing to consider adopting him but I haven't decided yet. I will be busy, especially for the next 2 weeks. Is adoption a possible solution? Archtransit (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff

Thank you for your defense. Yet it seems he's just angry. Maybe he'll change his mind. The door remains open. Further engagement seems counterproductive. Durova 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No, I think he's just having a laugh. If he really cared he'd be acting rather differently, I think. I would leave him to it if I were you. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

Hello Guy long time, haven't talked to you since before my RfA and have been busy for a bit after that. I see we've ended up on opposite sides of this dispute. Here's to hoping for a civil affair all-round rather than degenerating into BLP warriors vs TELL THE WIKITRUTH zealots.

I just wanted to query you on the USPTO conjecture, which is that there is no way to tell if the person who filed the USPTO is the person who uses it. By the USPTOs own website under that patent type the person who filed the patent is the person it is intended for, there are separate patent types for corporations and attorney filed patents. This is not conjecture or original research, this is the equivalent of it stated "real name" on a birth certificate and, in my eyes, should not be interpreted differently. –– Lid 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

I presume you are still waiting for a response from him? I gather you had asked him for more supporting materials. I want you to know I appreciate you being an intermediary in this for us. There is no rush of course; I know these things can take a long time. I have held off on editing the article and will continue to do so until either a lot more time has passed, or else we get some sort of response from him one way or another.--Filll (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Weiss

Hello JzG, I had recently read a few articles on the Weiss controversy and, as you can see, was making an attempt to remove any bias from the article and explain the situation objectively. I don't see how that could cause the lockdown of the article. Joshdboz (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You'll be unsurprised to learnt hat this is not as simple as it looks :-) Protection is not for long and I have watchlisted for {{editprotected}}. Please be aware, though, that the Register story is unmitigated bullshit so we won't be citing it. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the information shouldn't be taken at face value, but I don't see the problem in explaining an accusation (editing wikipedia) and denial by Weiss, considering it is verifiable. Joshdboz (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • We do not spread memes on behalf of banned abusers. Especially when those memes are part of a widespread campaign of harassment by said banned users. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is no reason to exclude verifiable information from Misplaced Pages. Joshdboz (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WordBomb Talk Page

You seem to have deleted a talk page as soon as it was linked from a story in a fairly major news source with the explanation "test page, or some such." I'm not really sure what's going on here. Could you fill me in? -Rjm656s (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Thank you for your contribution to User:Sfacets, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Misplaced Pages, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you knew the context, you'd know that JzG was removing provocative harrassment. --Simon D M (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/TTN

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/TTN. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I do not believe this was a poor moment in my judgement, and I believe my claim deserves serious consideration. I do not think whatever my “best friend” thinks is my finest hour has anything to do with the hard evidence I presented. In fact, my Adopter, User:Matthew Yeager is taking a close look into it. Please undelete the page and let Wikipedians consider the evidence and judge for themselves. Taric25 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Openbravo

Hey, why did you delete the Openbravo article again? It was restored by DR decision: . Phils 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I am not the same user. My name is Josep Mitja and I am the COO at Openbravo. You can find about me at Open_Solutions_Alliance. To avoid any missundersanting, everytime I have posted an entry I have always disclosed my status as an Openbravo employee. Jordimas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Openbravo's Community Director. He is a well respected member in the open source community and actually somebody (not himlself) wrote an entry about him in the catalan edition of the wikipedia. Sanjeevnath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another Openbravo employee. We are totally respectful of the Misplaced Pages rules. Being an open source project ourselves, we understand very well the power of the community. Nonetheless, I think the Misplaced Pages would be a better reference tool with the inclusion of Openbravo (eg. in those pages where other open source projects are listed). We want to be good Misplaced Pages citizens and follow whatever process is defined, but -honestly speaking- the Misplaced Pages universe is very complex and difficult to understand by outsiders (eg. should we write a good entry as a starting point, or leave it up completely to more expert editors?). If you make a mistake (ie. too eagerly writing an Openbravo entry when the project was too small), you get punished (ie. blacklisted) and it seems to be impossible to get out of it. Please, help us do the right thing. Jmitja (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also like to request that you recreate the page, I have absolutely no affiliation with Openbravo besides the fact that I happen to use it. I was trying to start working on the article, and I realize that I need more independent sources, but at that point, all I had put down was basic information about the program. As you can see from my contrib history, I'm not a single purpose user, I love to use wikipedia and I love to make the encyclopedia better. Also, as per CSD G4, the article was not substantially identical to the one that originally existed. Thank you, Thylacine222 (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Appeals to authority

When I am contributing anonymously and get in a debate with someone, I am usually quickly subjected to threats and bragging "I know so many administrators, when I tell them about you, you'll be so blocked, so drop this thing immediately." If I press the issue, indeed, they email some administrator and wham-bam, I'm blocked. This is called an Appeal to authority and is a logical fallacy. It also has a chilling effect. When you (JzG) say "I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases." do you mean to say that you only use wikipedia to support other users who are making appeals to authority? If not, would you please clarify? Thank you, Galexander (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets escalation

Hey, Guy, I suggest that you go review the edit changes you made with the reverts. I don't see any credible case that his userpage was actually harrassing anyone when you got into it with him (a link to "Simon Says" is pretty tenuous, his conflict with Simon D M notwithstanding).

I'm suspicious of him, too, but picking a fight with him about his userpage and managing to put yourself in the wrong over it is not the right way to deal with him.

Thanks.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

George, it was provacative harrassment, plain and simple. Sfacets linked to a site harrassing me and to my place of work. --Simon D M (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Star

Thank you Guy for the star and your kind remarks. It is very much appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Moon Griffon

I barely know Billy Hathorn, just seen his username once or twice. I commented on the AFD. If there's anything to learn about the WP process or logic used, feel free to let me know. The best solution is to improve the article so it's a clear keep. That improves the article, eliminates controversy, and improves WP. Archtransit (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! I just saw that you submitted a RFC on Billy. You also wrote the AFD on the Moon Griffon article. I'm more interested in improving WP, not arguments. So my solution tends to work around the problem by improving articles, not directly addressing faults. Anything I can do to help, just let me know. My expertise is aviation related, not Louisiana, so I'm a bit unqualified to write about someone that I don't know anything about. Archtransit (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • He's got more deleted articles to his credit than anyone else I know. He started off copy-pasting obituaries, then paraphrasing them; lots of them are small-town types and he keeps citing his own master's dissertation as a source. He's wasting a lot of time but not listening to people who are trying to help him not to make the same mistake over and over again. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Tweety21

Tweety21 is back editing. After she made her presence known, an admin un-deleted my sockproblems page (along with other things that, to my understanding, had been deleted, contingent upon her not coming back). I didn't ask to have the page returned, but since it was there, I went ahead and updated it with the new edits she had made. Now she is claiming that she was only banned for two months. Can you please let me know if this is true? I'm still done here once I wrap up my unfinished project (which is completely unrelated to Tweety21), but I don't want to piss off the Foundation if she cut some kind of deal. Thanks, Precious Roy (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)