Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:00, 12 April 2008

User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam.

I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.

I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Misplaced Pages is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.

Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

Msg to Guy

Hi. You recently nuked the WSEAS page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:COIN#WSEAS). Since then, someone suggested I try my hand at writing a better draft in my own space, StaySeven/sandbox. I am happy to, but could you please restore the last useful version there (I mean put a copy in my sandbox, not restore the article to full status) so that I have some raw material to work with? Once I'm done with the draft, I will invite some more experienced users to take a look, and then follow whatever is the right procedure for re-including the page.

Thanks, StaySeven (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy

Hi JzG. I re-edited this section in the physical therapy page. I have provided sources for this section. Please read my post on the discussion page regarding this. Looking forward to your input. Thanks JlharrisDPT (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• And the first para had a source which failed to support the text, the second was unsourced and the third pretty trivial. Oh, and your obsession with this makes me think tat you are promoting your own discipline and hence financial interests. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, actually just trying to contribute to a subject I know a lot about. I have cited everything (now). Please let me know what you have questions about specifically (now). ThanksJlharrisDPT (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi JzG. I agree with your edits, but I tagged the material to try to give JlharrisDPT a chance to improve on his addition; otherwise, he'll just continue to add back citationless, COI stuff. For now, I'll just put the stuff you deleted on the article's talk page for JlharrisDPT's benefit. Thanks for your help, and please let me know if you have any ideas of how to assist this user better. --Eustress (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regina Rams

As it happens, the problematic content in the instant article was added 25 March and removed 6 April, before, in fact, you redirected. That the article is unsourced is, of course, a separate issue, and a redirection on the grounds of an article's being unsourced might, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, be reverted, with discussion to follow if appropriate. Because the version from which you redirected contained, unless I'm being especially inattentive, nothing that contravened BLP and suffered only from the defect of being unsourced (and certainly, even without sources, makes a very fine case for its meriting a standalone article, as against a redirect to University of Regina#Sports), I'd wonder whether you might be inclined to revert to that revision (or, if you happen to believe that a redirect remains appropriate for other reasons, to unprotect, in order that other editors differently inclined might themselves revert, with reprotection in order, of course, should vandalism of the "What he lacks in height..." variety persist, or even should we, in view of the OTRS query, deem protection against the insertion of problematic material to be now appropriate). I'll likely pursue DRV (even as this isn't a deletion, DRV is probably the place at which a discussion about it should be situated) if there is not some agreeable solution to be reached here, but I'm surely in no hurry, so you should feel free, of course, to let me know at your leisure.

Unrelatedly, and much less verbosely, I should, as someone who has, more than once, espoused (cordially, at least) the view that the net effect on the project of your participation (at least qua admin) is negative, and who has had occasion to disagree with you about many things, say that I found this to be very, very nicely and persuasively put. Cheers, Joe 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I redirected it because not only was it unsourced, it was being used to attack a living individual, and it lacked any assertion of independent notability. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, but only one paragraph was being used to attack a living individual, and it was removed before you redirected. University sports teams, at least those associated officially with national governing bodies, are, AFAIK, presumptively notable, and the article certainly asserted notability sufficient to overcome traditional editorial concerns that would lead to redirection or deletion. If you deem full protection (with some reasonable expiry date) to be necessary to prevent further insertions of BLP-violative material, I don't see that I'd object, but certainly the article, having had the BLP-problematic content removed (and, for that matter, having shown no history of being a repeated target for BLP vandalism) and having continued, even in the absence of sources, to make out a facial case for notability, should not be protected as a redirect. Am I correct to take it that you're not inclined to revert the redirection and that, if I continue to disagree, I should take the issue to DRV (for lack, I guess, of a better place to solicit the views of the community)? Thanks, Joe 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the United States

Guy, I do not know if you were the one who moved it to this title and why, but many of the article's established editors feel the move was done based on one user's BOLD action. I looked at the article's log and it only shows that you protected the article from moving. Are there some edits missing in between, because you said that you deleted it first to make room for a move? Anyway, would it be possible to move it back to the original title, because we are having a problem with the topic of this article with the title being as it is now. Please read the objections to this title and the original move that the editors have raised on the article's talk page. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know either, if I did it was simply reversion of an undiscussed move. I have no interest in the subject. Requested moves would be the place to go, if you think you have consensus. I bet you don't have consensus, just the usual two entrenched camps, but I'm not going there right now. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you semi protest this Social network aggregation

The guy is CSD it when I told him AfD and it is an anon IP. I asked for protection but taking time and he trolling my page. Igor Berger (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Should I be asking for a block? Definitly a sock User:Angrysusan here under User:128.36.147.198 referenced, "I did AfD as you recommended" before he created his user id. Sorry to bring you this trival thing..:) Igor Berger (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm blind, can't see where there was a CSD? It was prodded... Is the above a sock? Someone, an IP, may well have then created an account - hardly a sock. Look at the talk page for the article in question. Igor seems to be showing WP:OWN qualities - can't see why he removed the AfD numerous times? Minkythecat (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He did it as the anon IP.

DUDE! IT IS AN AFD, NOT A CSD. Angrysusan (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) - - you said above to naominate if for AFD, so I did. Now you're removing that tag. WHY?!?!? Angrysusan (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Igor Berger (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can see it was prodded -I thought, as a relative newbie, prod was for things not meeting criteria for speedy delete? Even so, why did you on numerous occasions remove the AfD tag on the page, Igor? Minkythecat (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I mixed up between prodded and CSD, but it cannot be speddy because of consensus established by two admins here Also I did not realize he changed it to AfD as I suggested. He must have tried to prode it speddy for 10 times, and the posts to my talk page 10 times. So I did not realize it he changed to AfD untill I saw your message. Thanks for the help. Igor Berger (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, as much as I'd like to WP:AGF, you removed the AfD tag numerous times - not just once. The edit summaries by Angrysusan clearly referred on several occasions to it being AfD. Assuming good faith, all I can guess is that you got wound up seeing something happening to the article - as I've said, it's bordering on WP:OWN - and instant reverting. Just step back, participate in the AfD and generally chill. Minkythecat (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been made on a matter in which you were involved. You may add yourself as a party and comment if desired at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Appeal_of_commuity_ban_of_Iantresman. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

Why was this list blanked? Just curious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• It wasn't blanked, I just removed the ones that weren't sourced. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dramahz

Sorry for the drama the other day. I have to stop watching Geraldo Rivera and Days of our lives..:) Igor Berger (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

the afd of Rock N Roll Worship Service

Hi, Guy. I've followed up to your question at this afd. You bring up good points about wp:music's intent. I can't speak for the intent (nor do I have any attachment to this group). I'm just trying to apply the criteria as it's currently written. As your edit history indicates that you are active in the wp:music discussions, this may be a good case to use as a starting point for seeing if the definition of "national music charts" need to be specified/clarified/restricted (not sure what the best word is) to indicate intent. Right now the word is (perhaps purposely) vague. Best wishes. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved tag

On the AN/I section. I removed it, as I think people are still commenting. I certainly would like to see an explanation, as would, it appears, others. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think somebody else had the same idea, so I was edit conflicted on AN/I as I wrote this note. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• How silly of me not to realise that what we really need most of all is MOAR DRAMAH. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, we need less drama, more experts. And premature archiving never creates less drama, you must have noticed that by now.... --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We need more experts, not more "experts". Think user:Jon Awbrey. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear God, yes. But even the sane ones tend to be older and more accustomed to talking at length without being interrupted, so the AfD in question was guaranteed to, first, get them riled, and second, drive them away.... --Relata refero (disp.) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

calm down.

thanks for your unsolicited intervention, but nothing i said was out of line or contrary to policy. --emerson7 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that you consider posting to the admin noticeboards not to be solicitation. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up!

My word you are right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Remote viewing and elsewhere

Hello Guy,

I hope you don't mind my posting on your page, but I'd like to formally ask you to stop being insulting and uncivil. Especially at this time on the Remote viewing talk page. Examples include referring to the paranormal or belief in it as "True Belief," and "twaddle," (which is insulting to anyone who might believe). Also, your telling me to "stop spitting in the soup" and to "stop trying to obscure this obvious" (emphasis added) as well as this sarcasm. I wouldn't mention it, but these kind of things create an unnecessarily hostile and unpleasant atmosphere for everyone, not just me- even in those cases where it's mainly directed at me.

Thanks ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• You stop promoting fringe bullshit and I'll stop being sarcastic. Deal? Guy (Help!) 09:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#ScienceApologist.2FJzG. John254 04:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• All that's missing is any attempt to resolve the content dispute. Oh, and of course it's a content dispute, so not amenable to arbitration. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Spam members
• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping