Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:JzG Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:23, 31 July 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits →You deleted an article against consensus: and another thing...← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:01, 12 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
]
{| align="right" width="260px" |-
|__TOC__
|-
|----
!align="center"|]<br/>]
----
|-
|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
----


==JzG essay==
]<br>
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Me_and_Wikipedia
]
|}
'''Guy Chapman? He's ]'''
----
Thank you to everybody for messages of support, and to JoshuaZ for stepping up to the plate. I have started to write what happened at ]. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. ] 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
----
<center>'''Read This First'''</center>
'''If you need urgent admin help''' please go to ]. To stop a vandal, try ]. For general help why not try the ]? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may ], I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, '''''' to start a new conversation.


Don't let the trolls push you out of here. We need you.--] 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. '''This user posts using a British sense of humour'''.
----
* ]
* <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • • )</span>


:Thank you, Guy, for that excellent essay.<br>Don't let the bastards grind you down. Cheers, ] 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
== Good work on ] ==


Excellent essay. Please come back when you've cleared your head. . --] 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I might not have pushed so hard, but you were clearly right, and the Socafan was clearly in the wrong. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated. ] 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Indeed, excellent essay. I agree with almost all your points, but - mostly, as technicality - I disagree with 'The Wild West'. ] :). PS. You know, I am stalked by my own 'Rfwoolf'. And the ArbCom has done nothing to stop him. I do wonder if such users will bring the project down... PS2. Please come back, don't leave us, yadda yadda - we had our differences but I believe we need people like you in the project. Hope to see you around,--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
==Asperger syndrome==
I see you've been down this road before. ] I'm somewhat new to Wiki myself: is it time for an ArbCom, would that help considering the extensive history, and if so, how does one do that? ] 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:God knows. It's a thorny problem - the reliable secondary sources here are medical, so those who are in what might be termed denial of the medical interpretation simply don't make it into the medical journals. It might be worth floating it around the mailing list (]) or the admin noticeboard; I freely confess to be well out of my depth with that one! ] 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


May I suggest you restore the 7000+ edits to your talk page? As you've returned to editing, it really should not stay deleted. ] 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
== Editor Crossmr and ] ==


Please look at the edit record with regard to Crossmr and ]: it appears that he is (ab)using Misplaced Pages rules to systematically remove all material which places LiveJournal management in a bad light regardless of the facts: for example, multiple LJ users' accounts of identical actions by the LJ Abuse Team are removed "because LiveJournals are weblogs and Jimbo Wales has decreed that these are unacceptable as sources" (quasi-quote). OTOH, he allows LJ management statements to appear unchallenged because LJ management speaking for itself is "an official source." The net effect is that the article POV in favor of LJ management.
He does this with other material in the article as well. In another example, he has repetedly censored the fact that some LJ users abbreviate the phrase "Friend-list" as "flist", even though a casual LJ user will see the neologism repeatedly in use.
A quick scan through the record will show many similar removals and reverts of factual information he just plainly doesn't want to appear in the article, all under the guise of following WP guidelines, following their letter but not their spirit.
We have disagreed in the past, but you strike me as basically a fair man. I realize I can be hot-headed when information which I personally know to be true is reverted, and have a tendency to personalize, so I withdrew myself from arguing with him about this several days ago. Your advice and perhaps intervention would be appreciated.
] 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:I find your accusation that I'm abusing the rules a bit of a personal attack. Just because you want to include material you can't source properly is no reason to start accusing me of abusing the rules. Perhaps you need to re-read ], ] and several of the other policies on including content in[REDACTED] again, but we don't relax the rules just because you think the content should be included, especially on policies that are the cornerstone of wikipedia. Schmucky was able to go out and find sources for the breastfeeding material, as such, it remains. Its not a complicated process. If you want to include a theory, put forth an original idea, '''define a term''', introduce an argument (like a criticism), or several of the other things on this list ] You need to bring a citation. If you cannot, its original research and cannot be kept in the article. The policy cannot be misinterpreted as it clearly states ''These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus''. So while you, or I, or a dozen of us may agree that some term means something, without a citation it fails the original research test and must be excluded. The complimentary policy ] also has a very clear definition of what may be included. This is also a non-negotiable policy. The first paragraph very clearly defines the goal of this encyclopedia and what you wanted to include flew in the face of that. This spells it out very clearly ''The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is thus '''verifiability, not truth'''''. These are not just good ideas, these are binding policies for inclusion of content.--] 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:: I think it's extraordinarily tacky to attempt to start an argument in someone's User Talk page, but since you have misinterpreted my request for review as a besmirchment, I will reply here this one time. I don't presume to speak for him, but '''''I''''' would request that this not occur again in JzG's User Talk page.
:: I would be more inclined to believe you if these policies were enforced as stringently elsewhere as you enforce them in this one particular article, and if it didn't ''appear'' that your pattern of these deletions enforce a particular point of view.
:: However, rather than make the mistake of claiming my perception is an objective fact, I have asked JzG to please review the ] edit record.
:: If you want to personalize this review request into a personal attack upon you I cannot stop you from doing so, but that is not my intent. My intent is that facts not be disincluded for capricious, arbitrary, or rules-abusive reasons. An unbiased administrative review will help in this regard, I believe.
:: I am trying very hard (JzG knows with what a temper I can sometimes express myself) to not be "personally attack-ive", as it were. Looking at what I wrote above, I guess I could still have been better at it, and I'm sorry for that. However the issues are valid ones over which to be concerned, it seems to me, which is why I'm asking someone else to look at the record.
:: I await JzG's review at his convenience, or if he is not able, I would hope he can request someone of equal disinterest to do it instead.
:: ] 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Not at all an argument, just ensuring he receives both sides of whats going on. Your tone was accusatory and very negative in regards to your perception of my behaviour.--] 01:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


* This really is just a guy that should get back to work or he won't be able to afford his Volvo payments. ] 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
*] is somewhat ambiguous here. It allows the use of blogs as primary sources when discussing their subject but in this case that woudl depend on whether you consider the subject to be LJ or the individual LJ users. Either interpretation is valid, and if there are a significant number I would be inclined to allow it with some care given to the wording. I'd also be inclined to keep it very short, as there is no evidence presented that this event was considered significant by anyone other than the livejournallers themselves. But that is just my personal view; as always, secondary sources are preferred. It would be much better to find coverage of this story in one of the tech journals and say "according to s--and-so" where so-and-so is a source of known authority, and most importantly it would allow us to have a secondary source for the purported imnportance of the events, which is the real issue for me. Have any of the notable web-watchers covered this in sufficient detail to be helpful? ] 12:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:* Heh! Funny. But I paid cash, as I always do... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:In this case its seemingly used to support criticism about Livejournal and to support a definition of flist. I don't believe anyone's written a blog entry about what they feel flist means, so that usage is definitely out. I'd also mention that RS was recently changed by someone trying to push an agenda for inclusion of certain content in a couple of articles based wholely on unreliable usenet posts. Previous to this it read that blogs were never usable unless the person was a well known researcher or journalist. I think trying to source blog opinion on LJ is a bit pointless. You have no way of knowing if they're in the significant majority (unless you can find some credible sources), so simply saying "xx livejournal user said this" doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion because really, why is that person's opinion encyclopedic? There are hundreds of thousands of users, we could make the article pretty long sourcing each of their opinions.--] 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


:: Addiction to editing on Wikiulosia will likely cause the loss of job and family. The "me disease" is harmful. ] 14:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
::I suggets mediation. I really don't have the time to get into another content dispute right now, and the arguments are detailed. ] 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


:::JzG, I totally *get* where you are coming from, but, selfishly, I will MISS YOU around... --] 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
== Notices ==


== Regarding deletions... ==
Thank you for the "Rouge Admin" thingy. Please be aware that I do not use userboxes, nor am I particularly enamored of the sentiment implied by that one. I realize you meant well; however, I have removed it. ] 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


(I hope I type in this correctly in the correct space without deleting anything)
:Rouge is as rouge does :-) 12:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I have not written it myself, since I'm not neutral perhaps, but I asked for my friends to open an account an I started to wirte something but that was deleted, an then I asked for professional help. Of course writing about family is a bad idea, but is it forbidden? And regarding the deletion of a talk page today that WAS a misstake, I have problem with my connection and I typed while the test was marked and I couldn't restore. OK, sorry, is that fixed??
I just kindly ask you to help me to keep the pages (two of those that we are debating), I have collected so much info to my friends who have helped me and anyone else can offcourse change the page if you like!!--NGL 14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


* See the message on your talk page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
== Perhaps you can help with this though... ==


== Oops ==
I meant to move a page this morning ] => ]) and almost made a mistake - I cut and pasted the article content from one page to another (where there was once a redirect back to the original page) and saved it. I should have used the 'move tab' - I did not know that it was possible to move 'over' a redirect but caught this in time by some 'in doubt' last-minute reading. - and my error gave the page I wanted to move to a history, which made it impossible to complete the move. Could you somehow efface my 'history' error and make the move possible once again?


I didn't see your edits, until I went through them again. Well, I'm deleting ''all'' '''Bold text'''the external links until it can be figured out what is going on, and until notability for the individual articles established. I think the individual articles should just be speedied. ] 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, regards,
* G11 is your friend :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
**Oh, thanks, just what I was looking for. ] 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


==Joy, joy, joy!!!==
] 08:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Truly happy to see you back and supplying your usual straight talk. ;-) Take care, ] 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
:Aye, rock on! ] 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, ditto! ''']]''' 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


== Finished your redux for you ==
:This is a complex move, I will do it when I get a minute. ] 12:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


You probably lost interest, but just in case ] is finished and sorted. ] | ] 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
:: Really? I had no idea it would be hard to fix - apologies. No hurry at all, as the move has been temporarily 'waylaid' through some creative juggling. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. ] 13:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


== ] ==
::: It's not hard to fix. I have to delete the redirect, move, then undelete to restore and merge the deleted history. It's a mildly tedious action but not an especially arduous one. ] 13:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi JzG,
Wait a second - perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking that you clear the history of the ] - leaving the redirect there - but 'freeing' the namespace for an eventual future move. If a page has a history, one can't move over it - and the only history the ] page has is my 'paste' error, so it would seem alright just to just eliminate this without worrying about special treatment. Or did I miss something? Anyhow, thanks. ] 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you are back! While I realize that this may not be the best time for this, and the personal pain that this page has caused you, there is an ] running amok on ] making personal attacks and generally making a mess of the article. I tried the ArbCom enforcement board, but an admin was unwilling to block as the ] has made a few minor edits (mostly unnecessary capitalization or wikilinks) in other articles. As you are very familiar with the editing history of the page, I would be very interested to have your opinion on it, however, I would understand if you do not wish to visit this page again. Thanks, ] 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks! ] 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks again, JzG. I noticed that you placed a full-protection template on the page, however the page is only semi-protected. I would endorse full protection to put an end to this counter-productive edit-warring. Thanks, ] 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Clue deficiency. Fixed now. Frankly I think the project would be better off if that article were a lot shorter. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


*Hi JzG, whenever you get a chance, can you please see #14 (Protection) and #16 (For JzG) and #12 (edit request) on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine Thanks in advance for your feedback. ] 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:Done. Might work, but doesn't matter too much if not. ] 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


== A personal attack targeting you ==
:: Thank you, sir! Sorry for the mess. ] 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


<span class="plainlinks userlinks">] (] · ] · ] · · ] · )</span> made a personal attack targeting you in the now deleted article ]. I thought that you would like to know about this in case this user is stalking you and you did not know about it. This user also wrote another attack article on another administrator in the now deleted article ]. ] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
==Overreaction==
* Thanks, I think my "frustrated ] meter" is registering 100% on that one. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:I am sorry if I make you distressed with the above notice, but I feel that administrators should stick together and help each other withstand trolls. By the way, due to the attacks, this account now has a final warning regarding attacks. ] 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::Looks like this troll is indef blocked by someone else. ] 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::: Could also have been username blocked. No biggie, though, just a garden-variety troll. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


== Sectarian Movement ==
I think you need to actually look at the of the ]. It was never pointed toward ]. Your tone is really over the top here. ] 19:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Dont agree with your claim that protestant is the same as sectarian. Two completely different things.] 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, someone who writes this:
* But in the absence of a more recent citation, it will do. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
==The THF thing==
Guy, I think you have done a good job of remaining neutral and fair in this dispute, and I will go out on a limb and say THF would agree. Would you be willing to open an ArbCom case to iron this out? I don't think it would be a good idea for either THF or myself to do it, because I think neither of us has the ability to present the questions posed in a productive manner. --<span style="color:#0000C0;">David</span> ''']''' 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


== You don't know me but... ==
<blockquote>
I wonder which hoary old argument has just been revived? Could it perhaps be the perenial demand by the Papists to move their article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church? I must wander along and have a look - maybe there will be a new argument this time. Yes, yes, I know - the triumph of hope over experience... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
</blockquote>


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] '''Hello JzG''', SheffieldSteel has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the ] by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small></div><!-- Template:Smile -->
perhaps should not be so quick to judge. Your edits have a clear bias. I have not seen any evidence that you are willing to engage in a discussion of Catholic naming issues from the perspective of WP conventions and policies. This is problematic for an administrator who can enforce his bias with impunity. If you would like to have a rational discussion, I am more than open to it. But threats will not help the situation. You might also want to read this article: ''']''' ] 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*It's good to see you back at wikipedia. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


== Welcome back ==
:Since you appear to view everything through the filter of how closely it matches your own agenda, I have little doubt that you would never perceive any position other than your own as neutral. This is known locally as ]. For your information I have taken part in these discussions some while back. As far as I'm concerned the issue is settled long since, notwithstanding the occasional rehashing of the same arguments. Of course I, as an Anglo-Catholic, have a bias as well. The difference is that I am open about it and do my best to discount it.
Welcome back! I hope that your WikiBreak was enjoyable/restful/(insert other adjective as appropriate : )


Whether I may or may not agree with your opinion in any specific instance is immaterial (though imo, I think you ''do'' try to be fair). Imho I think you (among many others) do a necessary, but often underappreciated, set of tasks around here, and it's nice to see you "back at it". : )
You are right that the redirect was not to religious order. I aoplogise. On the toher hand, it should have been. To point it to a Catholic-specific article in the first place was a failure of ]. Your user page makes it quite plain that you are waging a POV-pushing campaign. ] 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


I hope you're having a great day : ) - ] 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


You are right, I should have directed "religious life" to "religious order." It was a thoughtless error on my part but not with malicious intent. And I have no argument with the present redirect. Your anti-Catholic commentary suggests that you have a bias regarding issues I edit on. When Anglicans and others move an article without discussion, administrators look the other way. If I move it back because there was no due process, I get threats. If you are going to have a role in Catholic related articles (which your Papist comments to me suggests you shold not), then you and other administrators should be more even handed. Also, it would show good faith on your part if you would actually demonstrate in your commentary a familiarity with ]. The arguments have become much better developed than they were in March. The March discussion was not argued from a WP standpoint but a theological one. The arguments on the page just sited are not a rehash. However, it appears that you are comfortable hiding behind "an old conversation" because it suits you. This kind of intransigence among WP administrators will be WP's undoing in the long run. How is it possible for 17 people last March to decide with authority and finality something so obviously controversial. This is irrational.


== fring ==
It is also a convenience for you to label me as one who cannot possibly see another side of an argument. This of course works both ways. You and your fellows have shown nothing but disdain for rational discourse. You almost appear to be afraid of it. There really IS a serious problem when administrators can use terms like "Papist" when they talk to one another and no one says anything. Apparently that is just fine. Apparently it is also just fine when it is brought to your attention on your talk page. If you are going to remain an administrator you ought to have a more professional way of handling things, including recusing yourself from editing topics which arrouse some layers of bigotry within you. ] 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


hi there
:Oh FFS, calm down. It's only a website, you are taking this ''way'' too seriously. Intransigence? Nonsense. Like I said, the discussion has been done to death; you are wading in to a long-settled compromise and asserting your particular prejudices. You appear to believe that only your POV is neutral - read ] to see how the community views this kind of thinking. As I said before, people whyo come to WP to "right great wrongs" tend to be problematic, because when their belief clashes with policy they tend to assume that it is their belief which must prevail. A look through the Arbcom archives will show you any number of examples. ] 11:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


as per your comment in the afd
== Arbitration case will be filed ==
"Delete on balance, I think. The content is advertorial in style, and the references all appear to be traceable back to press releases and other non-independent sources. I don't think this is making its mark, and I suspect that the article is part of a campaign to fix that. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)"


The idea of this article is to educate people. Please help me edit the article so that it is not advertising. I don't understand what you mean about the references, also what is the difference between the ] article and the ], ], ], ] and ] articles, the list is endless. I used those articles as samples when making the fring article, so if fring goes then the others must also go must'nt they?
As you pretend to own anohter user's talk page, abuse your admin power to violate the 3 revert rule in order to push you POV, make derogatory comments, and as I see above not just concerning me and the French, you removed a POV-tag in spite of an obviously ongoing dispute and blocked me in spite of a conflict of interest I file an ]. ] 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
: If you get round to this, don't forget to post the link so we can comment too. ] 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
::It'll be interesting to see how many ArbCom members reject the request. ''(]])'' 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
::: It will be anti-climactic to see how many reject the request. Admins stick together like stink on shit, and when JzG says "jump," Jimbo says "How high?"
:::: Close: it's Jimbo who shouts jump and I ask how high. Which is why I worked so hard to try and keep the Armstrong article from turning into a hatchet job. ] 07:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


now i am confused please help me. Thanx simon
::My comments are in at ]. Feel free to add yours. ] 11:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
] 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


* Sorry, you'd need to pick someone who actually cares about that product. All I see is something being promoted on Misplaced Pages, and I'm not big on that. Comparison with massive global players like Skype and ICQ is unhelpful - a bit like asking that your garage band be included because we have an article on ]. You need to find substantial critical (as in analytical) editorial comment about the company, not mere reprints of press releases. A writeup of the company in one of the major business magazines is always a good place to start. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
== myg0t ==
Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, ] 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ;)


* Could you at least tell me what is viewed as advertising in the article so I can remove that text.
== Re-incarnation ==
mmm so if I understand you correctly if fring becomes a massive global player then they can get to advertise on wiki like Skype and ICQ? Either the article is an advert or it isnt, even global players like skype and ICQ can't have advertising space?? or am i wrong. The article is not intended as advertising! fring is a global player in over a 150 countries, may i ask what defines a global player? Please help me not to loose my confidence in wikipedia. It seems to me that even if there is no advertising in the article they will still delete it. ] 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You might want to quietly 'check' out this reincarnation of an (almost) anagram, I think the editor's agenda seriously concerns you too . I see enough edit material to perfectly correlate & . Here he is now a talk page setting forth his bias & previous uncivil behavior, deleting the (block) tag resulting from his numerical IP address. Other interesting diffs, then going down in flames again, wipes the trail at withdrawal; last day scuffling with other admins; I can provide more. He has targeted me in several articles and harps on my topics in false and disparging ways while trying to create new onerous policies. I think a 3rd id is his IP address, I am unsure as to the relation of Hexagon1. His favorite subjects for both named id's: caron & stupidity/IQ; a recurring word is "psychotic". I apologize for the add'l security name, but I am really getting concerned here...--] 10:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:Please email me. ] 11:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


== Spell fixes == ==Thanks==
Welcome back.


Thanks for your support at ]. I was, in fact, wrong about the specific incident that set me off, but right on the generalities of the situation and -- I'm glad to hear you say -- right, essentially, on the policy issue. I'd give you one of ], but I don't feel comfortable giving out someone else's barnstars, and besides, you already have one, it looks like.
I just got obsessive compulsive and have to fix 3 minor spelling errors in your statement at RfArb. I hope you don't mind! =D --]] 11:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:Not in the least. I have bone-deep burn scars on my left hand dating back to an injury in my early childhood, and I routinely make characteristic typing errors - I'd never be able to successfully run a sock farm ;-) Anybody is welcome to fix these. ] 11:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thank god, looks like it will be rejected. My RfA failed - guess I won't know what an RfC against me feels like =) =( --]] 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Wait, that doesn't really make sense, heh. Anyway, thanks for clearing up the sockmaster =D --]] 12:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: You never know, in time things can change. ] 12:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::=D. I seem to remember you on IRC, do you have a nick there? We can chat if you want --]] 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


As I said at WP:AN/I, NeutralHomer doesn't seem able to track subtlety very well, so I don't know whether it will do any good or whether he will fall back on the vaguely conspiratorial language he resorts to when I'm not summarily banned from Misplaced Pages on his say-so. I know which way to bet, though.
:::::: I only use irc for RC and when WP is down. ] 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, well, nice to "meet" you =D. Laterz. --]] 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Again, thank you, and welcome back. --] | ] 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
== ] ==


==Well==
Thanks for protecting this article. I was starting to feel like every second edit was a revert there. ] 12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
:Me too man! Thanks so much! --]] 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Since you've directly rebuffed personal dialog, I will be moving the article back to mainspace for the duration of DRV, as I feel your move was improper, and you have chosen not to offer an explanation. I request that you do not blank this message (actually, I'd like you to restore my other one too) Best wishes, ] 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
== Your comment on my talkpage ==
* I did offer an explanation (at DRV). I'm not ''opposed'' to dialogue, but I don't see that spreading it to multiple venues helps much. I am not very active right now, and didn't see much point. I also want to avoid the vast talk pages that I have historically had, they don't load on my Blackberry and take months to load over 3G. Nothing personal, you understand. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
*While I gladly accept your explanation, I was on the verge of taking it personally for a minute there! :) I really never understand when people blank individual messages off their userpages, especially if the message expresses a concern over a prior ''lack of communication''. Anyway, I hope ''my explanation'' at the DRV meets your satisfaction, because the course of action I pursued was quite typical. Perhaps, being less active, one might find it even more prudent to consult with others, more involved in a given set of circumstances, before assuming that "something is fishy". Just a suggestion for the future. Best wishes, ] 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


==Welcome back==
The comment with the diff you provided on my talkpage, is irrelevant, because I cooled down myself just like ten minutes after that and you probably knew it. There is no reason to warn me about something I removed, if I already realised my error. Your action doesn't fit the wiktionary nor dictionary definition of ''warning'', because I didn't need to be informed on something I already knew, but it might be seen as ''bossing'', which is an unacceptable thing for anyone here. Please remove the warning yourself. ] 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Good to see you back in the saddle. ]. ] 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
: Agreed - good to see you back. ] 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


==Thank you==
:No, I don't know what is going on the other side of your computer screen, I am not psychic :-) is still a personal attack. ] 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
...for correcting me on the GFDL thing. I was thinking that it didn't matter if the stuff was copied back to the creator's userspace, but you're absolutely right, your way makes more sense. ] has the makings of a great contributor to our community, and I would like to mentor him/her past any inadvertant mistakes; I have to admit that Calton's rude messages on that talk page raised my hackles, because I don't want to lose a productive member due to something stupid and unnecessary. Thanks again. Respectfully - ] ] 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
* No problem, VigilancePrime's error was small but worth correcting, I'm sure he won't do it again. He also needs to remove the laundry list of vandals from his user page. I'm not being drawn on Calton. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
==ArbCom==
Thanks for the advice, I will follow it. I haven't been sure how much of a case to build at this point, so I have focused on generalities with a few diffs. If I have been going about it wrong at this point, let me know, because I can supply ample diffs, although I figured since the case has not proceeded it would be better to wait until it does. --<span style="color:#0000C0;">David</span> ''']''' 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


== Possible BLP issue ==
:I have edited under an IP address for quite some time. However, you should not be questioning my edit count at all. My opinions are as valid as yours even if I didn't contribute to ''the good thing'' (wikipedia) as much as you did. ] 12:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


An AfD was put up by a relatively new contributor, {{User3|Ontheveldt}}, as his 3rd contribution to en.Misplaced Pages. His second contribution to Misplaced Pages was to create the category, People from Middletown, Ohio, Dr Jan Adams' hometown. However, instead of immediately adding Dr Jan Adams to this category, he immediately nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion. I suspect this is personal between Ontheveldt and Dr Jan Adams, however, I'm on wiki-break, and if you or someone watching your talk page, would monitor this situation if something more develops, I would appreciate it? Yes, yes, I know everyone is thinking, "Damn, Ontheveldt is more[REDACTED] savvy in just 2 edits than KP Botany will ever be." Be that as it may, BLPs and agendas don't mix well on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. ] 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
::Like I said, we need ot nkow your history so we can see where you are coming from. ] 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


== Hiya ==
:In what sense is "I find the fact that you think that you are running[REDACTED] unbelievable?" a personal attack? And like I said, you don't need to know my history at all. ] 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Good to see you again! ] 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::At what point did anybody suggest they were runnig Misplaced Pages? "Us" in this case clearly meant the community, i.e. those editors with a history of contribution to the project. Balance of reply is on ]. ] 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
: Indeed! ] 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


== Another strange article ==
:::The real reason why you placed the warning on my talkpage was, that you just didn't like my proposal and were suspicious about the fact that I knew where the village pump is after few edits. You can request checkuser if you still want to know who I am. Stop using warnings in content disputes. ] 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


After the COI post at WP:AN, I thought I'd point out ] to you. What do you make of that? ] 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: ...is the wrong answer. I don't give a flying fuck about your proposal, it has no earthly chance of success. There is no content dispute. Stop Wikilawyering and accept criticism when you are in the wrong. ] 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


== resolved ==
::::: I was not wikilawyering, stop spreading your flying fuck around me. You do something that goes against the policies, when somebody says you shouldn't do that you say he's wikilawyering. ] 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


hi I noticed on my complaint about user MJis4freaks you have "resolved" it, how? I cant see anything on his user page. Let me no. ] 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: And the policy which was contravened was?... You got it wrong. I was perhaps a little harsh with you, but that doesn't change the fact that you got it wrong. I think we should just let it drop. ] 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:I think this user thinks that there should be a Blocked section on his userpage or have one of those indefinitely blocked templates on his/her userpage (like {{]}}). <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">] ]</span></span> 10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


==]==
==]==
Hello,


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].
Hi. I'm curious why you thought it a good idea to revert ] to your preferred version and immediately protect it - especially since I honestly do not see any BLP issues in the version you reverted. But more to the point, I do not see how a single editor's single edit constitutes grounds for reverting an article and immediately protecting it under ANY grounds. ] 14:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:It's not my preferred version, it's simply a version I am comfortable with per ]. Socafan has repeatedly edit warred over the insertion of content and phrasing whihc implies that Armstrong is guilty of doping, when every test result and an official inquiry say the opposite. I posted it at ] for review, if others support a different approach they are welcome to propose or implement such. My sole concern is that Socafan's edits give more credit to the knocking copy than to the fact of his being officially clean (personally I don't believe any pro cyclist is actually clean, but that has no place here either). He also emphasises WADA over the independent review which criticised WADA. ] and ] apply here. Above all, there has been absolutely no attempt to discuss the detail of content and wording, just the usual "ZOMG ROUGE ADMIN ABUSE" crap, of which I am more than a little tired. As soon as Socafan shows willingness to debate the details of wording, rather than simply edit-warring over it and kicking up a fuss about being prevented from doing so, the problem evaporates. ] 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::I think most, though not all of the problems with Socafan's additions are in the quality of his writing, not the content. He's not really adding any material that shouldn't be cited... but he's using odd phrasings and just plain awkward ones. If you look at the edit I made right before your reversion, though, I cleared most (Though not quite all) of them up. Which is another reason why it's very, very bad to protect a page to a preferred version. (Note "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." and "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." Note also that the protection policy does not support page protection to enforce BLP, and that protecting a page to deal with a user who has recently brought an arbcom case against you is TERRIBLE practice.) ] 15:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


==Admin==
::: You may well be right, I have never been in that position before. If it had been some random article on a Pokémon or some such I would happily have left it at "the wrong version" but recent exchanges on the list have left me with a very strong impression that to do so is simply not acceptable in cases of WP:BLP. Am I wrong there? I am astounded that ] does not include BLP, since I know of at least three articles which are or have been protected for precisely that, and not flagged as ] (actually my reading of it is that it does cover BLP, but that may well need clarifying in the policy). Looking back I should have stubbed the section, I think. That would have been more transparent, yes? What matters here to my mind is policy, and policy is ] especially in cases of biography. For non-biographic content there is no rush, no deadline, little realistic chance of being sued. In the case of Armstrong, he had at one point eleven lawsuits going at once. There is plenty of evidence that he takes this ''particular'' issue very seriously indeed. As always, I am happy to learn from those more experienced. What would you have done in the face of what you perceive as an editor aggressively pushing potentially defamatory content? I must have got ''something'' wrong here, or the problem would not have escalated as it did. A lot of the active admins are not much more experienced than me, so I'm not overall surprised that ] did not yield wiser counsel. ] 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a note...you told VigilancePrime that Calton is an "experienced administrator". No, he isn't, actually. He's not an admin. And isn't that the MOST important thing on Misplaced Pages? That the information is correct, no matter how you go about wording it or how rude you are when you say it? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==User:CyclePat==
::::Well, ANI is a mess. I mean, I don't even read it. (Then again, I spend 95% of my time logged out these days, and just log in when I need to speak as a grizzled old fart. Like now.) The thing is, basically, for most purposes, you can act as an administrator in a situation, or as a content editor, but not both. If you're going to edit for content, you can't protect the page. You have to find someone else to do it. In this case, I'd have used ], started an RFC on Socafan (or made a counterclaim in RFAr), and probably pinged someone on IRC to have a look at it, or left a note on another administrator's talk page. ] 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a notification that not only hasn't he given up, he seems determined to ]. Note your name on the case. --] | ] 11:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Guy, just out of courtesy, I'm letting you know that I put an RFArb in for CyclePat as you suggested to do so, but as you're named as a party, you may still wish to comment at ]. Best of luck :-) ] 13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: You're probably right. The disease of immediatism, I guess. I see a problem, I have a desire to fix it ''now''. I am somewhat jaded about RFCs, at least in respect of providing rapid remedies to problem behaviour, and don't think this has got anywhere close to Arbcom's attention level yet. Ah well. ] 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


: Yup, thanks. Needs to be sorted once and for all, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
== My ] thanks ==


==]==
{| cellpadding=2 style="background-color: black"
Er, forget something? --] | ] 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
|-
* TW did not post the nom, and I had to go and do that shit they pay me for. Done now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
| ]
| <font color ="yellow">Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and thank you for your '''support''' at my ], which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of '''(105/2/0)'''. I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as '''Misplaced Pages'''. ''The 💕''. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of . In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. ]]] 06:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)</font>
|
|}


:Good one, ] 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
== Don't touch my posts ==


::No way in hell it should be deleted in my opinion, Guy, looking at the last just about unanimous AfD to keep, but I'll sit back now that I've commented and tag the SPA's as they appear (one already, what's the over/under, 5, 10?) ] 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If you touch my posts I will report vandalism {{unsigned|BillyColl}}
:Like the Talk comment said, that article was deleted. You are the second person to repost it - ''if'' you are not ]...


No real opinion, Murphy asked so I passed it on, which is only fair after all. Guy 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== please see ==


Guy, I really wish you'd simply let Don Murphy sue for Libel. He's unlikely to have a case, and we could use some precedent. Further, the incredibly contentious nature of his entire presence as a pair of words anywhere on Misplaced Pages's already resulted in the loss of H, after threats. I don't know why the OFFICE chickened out back then, except that H's leaving meant the issue was 'settled', but really, this is above the pay grade of all the volunteers here. That said, if there's a deletion, which looks unlikely, please salt the earth there, so we can simply avoid this ever again. ] 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
please see: ]. Thanks. ] 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


==Yes== == proms ==
Pretty sure... it likely doesn't matter... I believe the previous name's been abandoned. ''(]])'' 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Went to the proms today - Beethoven, Brahms, surprise extra the Academic Festival Overture, saw Joanna Lumley, met Richard Stilgoe and ran into a friend from the horn society. Good evening out! Guy 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
How long must the articles be? ] 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


==Non-help on help page==
== Comments re: Userfication of essays ==


Hi, while glancing at , I noticed a section at the end that does not look like it belongs there, but rather somewhere else. Check it out. ] 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Guy,
* Thanks for that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


== Welcome back ==
Thank you for your comments at the ].


Welcome back, Guy!!! -- ] 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think my major concern is that the essay category in Misplaced Pages project-space is becoming a backdoor method of ], without having to build consensus or go through any sort of community review. As you point out, the threshhold for inclusion is pretty low, even though the ] notes that, "The project namespace generally consists of polished pages."
:Yes, I'm slow on the uptake. -- ] 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


== Gastrich's latest petition ==
This has been a "new" issue that appears to have organically grown in the last six-seven months; and so, no policy or discussion (as far as I've come across) has been put towards it on Misplaced Pages. Your essay ] which you referenced in your comments, likewise dates to February of this year. As noted at the ], "As of 2006, there is some disagreement about whether new essays, particularly personal essays, should be added to Meta anywhere but in user space."


It is my belief that some of the sock puppets aren't Gastrich. I have reason to believe that ] is a sock puppet of banned user ]. This in no way excuses Gastrich's behavior, and in fact given his history the accusation is justified, but pointing out that his claim that he is being framed isn't ''entirely'' false. ] | ] 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Already the ] has generated over 200 essays, most of which are in user-space, but an increasing number are moved or created in Misplaced Pages-space-- including many which either make little sense, or attempt to be policy directives hidden in the guise of essays. To start alphabetically:
* And it's my belief that some of them are - and in any case it doesn't matter. There are two things Gastrich wants: to promote Gastrich, and to promote his agenda. Neither of those is compatible with policy. He is incapable fo editing within policy, he misperceives his own bias as neutrality, and I would be staggered if any other admin who has dealt with him would give you any answer other than "hell no!" <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
*] (created 10 July, 2006 as an article, moved to project-space by Uncle G), which makes the bizarre claim, "An englishman from southern England may refer to London with a diferent name than an englishman from northern England."
*], (created 21 June, 2006 by Samuel Blanning) which proposes that before writing an article, editors should "Forget everything you know about the subject."
*], (created 10 February, 2006 by Kim Bruning)
*], (created 30 March, 2006 by Brian0918), which was initially claimed to be a guideline.
*] (created 23 June, 2006 by SPUI) as a proposed guideline, then .


And that's just the "A"s.


{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
While your own essays are very clever and humourous, such as ] (created in December), are they necessary clarification, or do they just create a new Misplaced Pages-space page that can be cited as a -- like the other newer animal-themed essays and ] (2 Feb 2006) ] (13 July, 2006)?
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To ]: For his administrative actions in the most recent ] affair, showing patience, objectivity, fairness, and understanding of all related issues. - ] 05:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
|}


== PDMA ==
:You raise an interesting point. I would say that MfD should consider each one on its merits. If several essays address a common theme, perhaps they should be merged. If an essay gives an easily understood prose description of a common problem or situation (e.g. ]) then I think it would make very good sense to keep it. I haven't thought very depely about this myself other than to note that some are very definitely attempts to retrospectively legislate in arguments where people have been on the losing side, often with the deliberate intent of subverting or evading existing guidelines (e.g. ]). I guess ] counsels against more guidelines - proposed guidelines seem to arrive at the rate of one a week or quicker. So: I don't know :-D But I do know that one of those I looked at did seem to have at least some utility.
: Perhaps we should organise them into a menu like ], and maybe you're right there does need to be some kind of bar. ] 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Why did you delete the PDMA article? ] 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:*There's definitely utility in many of the essays; I certainly wouldn't claim they don't have useful points to make. However, should these count more than everyday comments people post on various discussion pages? Effectively, we have a sort of "rule inflation": even as guidelines are increasingly viewed as policy, non-consensus essays are given a "sheen of legitimacy" by virtue of being in Misplaced Pages-space and having an abbreviated WP: shortcut-- and thus are being treated (and cited on talk pages) as if they are guidelines. I would have no problem with the "good" ones being upgraded to proper guideline status, given appropriate community review. However, surviving an MfD might be seen as a further legitimisation; an essay that is "kept" would in effect, have de facto consensus approval to be a guideline, in a sort of round-about way. Recall the ]: given opportunity and no policy against it, some Wikipedians will turn innocuous "features" (like being able to write essays, or to create userboxes) into a means to promote a particular viewpoint.
* Same reason as last time: it was advertorial for an organisation with no obvious claim to notability. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::You note that you believe I am connected with the PDMA organisation which is untrue . ] 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:: I did, first time (I believe I found the link at ]). This time I did not. But that is not relevant. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


== Proab ==
::In my view, the category of "essay" is currently too open for misuse, when placed on Misplaced Pages-space. I might suggest that essays which are not being sought as proposed guidelines be either userfied or moved to Meta. Essays on WP-space which might become guidelines, should be changed to "proposed" status and thus gain approval or rejection. The problem is there are dozens upon dozens to go through, and rarely do they get brought up for deletion-- except when they are seen as being venues for personal attack. In any event, the quantity of pseudo-namespace redirecting to personal essays should be pruned back-- it reminds me of .COM registration, with people vying to get "cool" domain names for their personal pages. --<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 16:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi JzG,


I didn't remove the notice. I archived it because it was fully addressed + there is no reason to insist in shouting personal information on the streets. Nothing is achieved by your revert of mine . --] 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
== Cliff Notes ==
: I am waiting for your response JzG. Please discuss it in the talk page of the relevant page where I opened a section explaining my edit. --] 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Yes, and you've been waiting for a whole 20 minutes at 8:30am my local time, which time I spent getting ready for work. The issue is not "addressed", it is a notice of an arbitration enforcement. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::: JzG, you blocked Proab because you wanted for people to see his personal identity for 24 hours. "''It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing''". You even opposed its archival. even after the issue was discussed by Arbcom members and Morven wrote a summary of the discussion. I'll leave the issue. The notice is there. Enjoy it! --] 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: I have looked into it more since then. The original thing that was removed was a complaint with diffs and links that was problematic. Morven's notice was a factual statement with no external links. If people have a problem with this then they need to take it up with the arbitrators. I am not comfortable with multiply-blocked edit warriors removing this or any other arbitration notice. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: I didn't remove it. I archived it because the case was brought to the attention of the committee and as a result Proab was placed on probation. That's it. The rest is your desire for "people to see it". To let them know of the personal identity of a[REDACTED] user. That was the logic behind your block: "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". Proab had only informed the Office, one arbitrator and a number of admins. He hadn't informed all arbitrators and admins; and that was certainly his error, but maybe he couldn't have informed "all" admins because someone was about to reveal his identity.
::::: JzG, I am a human being and as much as you are, having a physical brain working in a similar way as yours. I come here with my arguments not with my personality or my contribution list or others. Please comment on the statements, not on the editors. --] 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


:::::: The WP:AE post was drawing this to the attention of the wider community. Above all, the problem is entirely of Proabivouac's own making - he did not have to evade his ArbCom sanctions and he did not have to go straight back to the same problematic behaviour. I have asked ArbCom to clarify. Now drop it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of this? ]. Looks like publisher adding a link to the Cliff Notes for all the classic works of fiction. Not sure about the rules, but seems wrong. ] 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Tricky. This looks like the entire Cliff Notes online free, which is a boon for students of the subject, but as you say a problem for spamwatchers. Since it is to the content, not to a sales blurb and off-the-page sales pitch I'd be inclined to allow it. But I'd need to lok at more than a couple to assess whether this is really full content or just enough to suck you in and sell. ] 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::Of course, I wish I'd had these available when I was in school. I had to actually buy the Cliff Notes, or <shudder> actually read the book. ] 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Damn, that's harsh :o) "Once more into the breach, dear friends, or close the wall up with out English dead..." Fammit, I can almost hear Olivier saying it. ] 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: Had to watch out for trying to use the movies. I think Olivier's Hamlet left Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern on the cutting-room floor. Kind of lost a bit. On the other hand, we did have the ] comics way back when, but they were awfully abridged, too. ] 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: But.... ]! :o) I'm off to get on my ] for a nice ride in the sun. Later. ] 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Looks like he's ]. -- ] 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::I have posted an opening for a discussion at ]. -- ] 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


::::::: That Proab acted incorrectly is clear. Yes, at times he may have shown problematic behaviour but this doesn't justify a straight generalization. He is a generally good and smart editor and I think there are many many editors on[REDACTED] who will agree with me.
== Apology ==
::::::: Thanks for asking for clarification from ArbCom. It is none of business anyways. Peace :) --] 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


:::::::: Ye,s it is ArbCom's business, and they can make the call. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you very much, I had not expected that. I am impressed, honestly. Can we start discussing at the article talk pages now? ] 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:I'm already there. ] 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::I am afraid your recent biased edits leave some doubt for me to believe in an honest apology: . ] 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::You are such a bad, bad rouge admin. :-) ''(]])'' 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


On the same subject, is there any paticular reason the block isnt quite considerably long because of his use of sockpuppets to evade the sanctions? Or is arbcom dealing? ]] 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::First, I apologised for being obnoxious to you. I am completely sincere in that. The fact that I stongly dispute the tone of your edits surrounding the doping allegations against Armstrong is completely separate. I think part of your problem here might be a failure to separate issues fomr personalities. It is perfectly possible to disagree and still remain civil. It is not, however, permissible to editorialise and insinuate guilt where none is proven. To take content which has been rejected in some form in one article and insert it into another in the same form is not permitted. It is called a ]. ] 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


* You are free to block him for longer, I guess. I don't think what he did was especially bad, but causing drama is only likely to draw more attention to the thing he'd rather hide. It's fine for an editor to change accounts to protect their real-world identity, but it's not fine for them to change accounts in order to evade a sanction. It's fine to change accounts to distance oneself from past misdeed,s, it's not fine to do it in order to distance oneself from the consequences of such misdeeds and thereby gain time to carry on the same problem behaviour. I'm undecided about whether Proabivouac is a net positive to the project. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
== ] ==


Proabivouac has been the target of sustained harassment, some from pov warriors and some from banned users running socks. In spite of it he does a lot of good scholarly work on some difficult pages, and makes a significant positive contribution. More than most editors, people of differing views recognize the value of his work. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So, you left the Astrology page when the getting was good. The BS continues. I wonder if you might look at the above user and his talk attacks. Some examples: . Basically, he just pops up on talk every once in a while to name call. He was blocked a month ago and replied as follows . Sorry to bother. The page has been an absolute drain on my Wiki-time. ] 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Clue-by-four wielded. POV warriors we don't need. ] 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


: I'm happy to take your word on that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for that. It's obviously not going to affect his behaviour, unfortunately. ] 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Judging by his email to me, no. ] 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


== Chrome (XM)==
== ] ==
I have noticed you have deleted the channel page a second time after having a stub tag placed on the page. I do not know your definition of content-free, but that page does have information on it that is of value. If you disagree with this, please expand the page with more content or ask other editors to edit the page before outright deleting the page. ] 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
* It's a directory entry for a minor facet of a company that already has an article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


== Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO) ==
I'm sorry about the delays regarding this article. I will check on the status shortly; I've just returned from holidays so am not aware of the status. - ] 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Appreciated, thanks. ] 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


On 9/7 you deleted these three entries: Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO). After reading your cited justification for the deletion, we've discovered that there are some footnotes that referenced press releases and the company website that, while common in other notable corporate profiles, did indeed violate the terms of the policy and will be revised or deleted. Aside from those points, the entries did not contain promotional language and there was strict adherence to referencing third party sources for every factual claim, including Forbes, the NY Times and the Financial Times. As a corporation, Travelport exceeds the criteria for being noteworthy in the context of companies listed on the Misplaced Pages "List of American Companies" with 2006 revenue of $2.6 billion, approx. 7,500 employees and operations in 145 countries. The company is also an important part of the Orbitz and Blackstone stories, both of which recently became public companies. In addition to his relevance to Travelport, Jeff Clarke was also an integral part of one of the largest mergers in the history of the PC industry (HP/Compaq). References for these types of claims were included in the original entries.
:: I'm not able to communicate with Brad, who is out of office on a support-raising trip. I'll be following up as soon as I am able. - ] 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Were there any other problems with the entries other than what was outlined in CSD G11? Since the basic criteria for Misplaced Pages content appears to have been met, I'd like to take your feedback and improve the entries. ] 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
* ], not an advertisement hoarding, and not the place to promote a business. Also, we have a ]. Your own company and it's glitterati are a ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


== Xenphobic comments == ==Hampl, Punto, Leutgeb ... ==
Hello. Thank you for your greetings. Sorry, because my english is also "not up to this". I'm a Horn player als amateur but i'm interrestet in history of horn and of horn players like Hampl etc. So i wish you, to make no "kikser" on your horn. --- ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Motorized Bicycles==
I'm very concerned about the you made on the "Lance Amstrong" talk page. I don't think Misplaced Pages admin shall behave this way. As for now, I'll watch your edits, just to be sure it was an incident.] 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help pruning the external links on the ] page! Your help is very... helpful! ] 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:This has already been addressed. The intent was to point out the very high levels of ill-feeling the Americans had engendered in the French at the time, and the corresponding likelihood of UCI letting Lance Armstrong, of all cyclists, get off a doping charge. It is an absurd idea. Ullrich and Basso have both been suspended this year, UCI have in the past pulled entire teams. There is no plausible basis for believing they would allow Armstrong to get away with it. ] 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::I concur with JzG's explanation. You read it wrong. --]] 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


==Since you were wondering...==
== Stefan ==
...this is typical behaviour of this user when interacting with others, as summarized ]. ] 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


== Republic Magazine deletion ==
] found a copy of that book in the library where he studies. You can read what he has to say on my talk page but the core is that the book is about the Holy Roman Empire, and has nothing about Schwarzenbergs in any century. Our desperate housewife is the kid and was lying though his teeth as usual. ] 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:Not unexpected. ] 13:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I would like to know why the page for Republic Magazine was deleted. This was the answer YOU gave: (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising Bi-monthly, started in July? That's, what, two or three issues so far? No chance.)
== Tallest structures in Paris ==


What dont you understand about the term "bi-monthly"?? Bi-monthly is EVERY TWO MONTHS. The first issue came out in July and was for "July/August", the 2nd issue is out NOW and is for "September/October". There is only TWO issues in existence, July/August and September/October. Bi-monthly-----> every TWO months, not bi-weekly, which is twice a month. Did you think I was referring to bi-weekly? You must have. I would like the page back up. I dont appreciate you just deleting it without being warned. If I was warned, I could have told you the meaning of the term "bi-monthly" in advance.
Hi, I'm having problems with that ] again. This article was incorrectly named, as 70% of all it contains is not in the city of Paris, so I moved it to ]. It's been moved back ''twice'' by two contributors who are of course unable and seemingly unwilling to provide any valid reference or argument to maintain their case. Basically what this amounts to is a couple of what seems to be suburban kids (amazingly similar in opinion and editing habits and article contributions) using Wiki to make it look like they live in the Big City - that Paris isn't. I've provided on the article talk page sources proving inaccuracy and links to Wiki naming conventions outlining what should be the correct name, but in spite of this all propositions go unanswered and any attempt at correction is reverted. This is a situation beyond pigheaded, and I'm even being dogged by one of the above contributors - you will no doubt get an answer to this below. I hope I'm wrong.


I dont even understand your reason why it was deleted. You said "started in July? thats, what, two or three issues so far? no chance". I dont even understand that. How many issues did you think there should have been since July? If it was bi-weekly that would mean about 5 issues would exist. If it was monthly, about 3 issues would exist. I did not say how many issues were in existence on the page. I just mentioned underneath the picture of the magazine with Ron Paul on it that it was the 2nd issue----which was CORRECT, since the 2nd issue is for September/October. What exactly did you not understand? Im not trying to be smartassed---I really dont know what you misinterpreted. Please put the page back up, because if it's not, I will know it was removed out of biased reasons. I'm a writer, I will do a story on wikipedia's blatant censorship if it's not restored. I will have the proof, so it wont be libel. ] 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you see the reason in the above and in the article talk page, would it be possible to move the article from its present space to ] once again?


* This is an encycloapedia. It exists to document that whicih is already verifiably significant, not promote that which people hope one day will be. Political activist magazines are a dime a dozen, and this one only just shipped its second issue. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry again for all the trouble. ] 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


== Why the reverts and re-reverts? ==
PS: for a clear picture of what I'm talking about, you can have a look at . Cheers. ] 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Eeeek. Whats going on, Guy? ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
: Was kinda wondering too ... - ] ] 08:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
* Lack of Clue - I went to revert titface's edits and clicked your contribs by mistake. Half asleep. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Heh! I know what that's like. 1:30am here and I'm stuck in work. Get some sleep, the two of you! :) - ] ] 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::: 09:29 here, and into the second cup of coffee - I'll be awake Real Soon Now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: Ha ha. No worries. I just thought for a moment the troll had cloned your account somehow and was carrying on his revert spree. At this time of night anything seems possible! ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


== BIG Daddy M ==
:See the Talk page. ] 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Regarding , who did you suspect him of being? Just curious, but is very much alike to , not to mention the fact that this is another editor who wars for no reason and edits Wrestling-related and comic-related articles. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the input - left you an answer. ] 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
* Let's not speculate further, shall we? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I meant no harm, there's no further evidence to support this theory anyway. Sorry for the inconvenience. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


::: Silly me - I should have gone about it the official way from the start. I've just filed a ]. Thanks and cheers. ] 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


== need a vist please ==


==Merge==
Do you think you could avert an edit war before it starts please? Please see discussion at the bottom of course in ]. Thanks. ] 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


== OTRS Question ==
==Sam Sloan announcement==
"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Misplaced Pages. I did post 100 chess biographies on Misplaced Pages. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until ] ], ] ] and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - ] (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en


I noticed you made a deletion related to ]. Didn't know if you wanted to reply to it or not. Just a heads up more than anything. Have a great day. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>]'''</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</em>
"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - ] (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT)
* I commented in the otrs irc channel that someone else should reply, since I was the one who nuked it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en
** I wasn't in channel so I missed that, sorry. I'll take care of it now. I've also watchlisted the article in question. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>]'''</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</em>
http://en.wikipedia.org/Dimitrije_Bjelica
::* No problem. I always think "I nuked it" looks less than caring in these circumstances, but it's what it needed; better to say "it has been deleted as failing blah blah" and have it come from an independent individual, IMO. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)


== Great work, keep it up ==
==Noel Rawsthorne==

No problem! Shame there isn't more information about him online, as I don't know a great deal offhand. ] 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

== ACIM ==

I saw your note on the ACIM page. This are so many subjects of interest to groups of people in the world that do not fall in the realm of academic.

As far I am concerned, what was a good article (with good referencing considering the material) has been destroyed. I believe that particular user has driven the original author away from WP. The person that was trying to help appears to have left. As far as I know I was the last person familiar with the subject. If it is the policy of WP to let "editors" who have no knowledge of a subject destroy the work of others then I have no desire to have much interaction with WP any longer.--] 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree about the original quality of the article - it read as a homily or dissertation. Pretty much all the referencing was to the book itself, which made the whole article ]. If there are no secondary sources, then we can't have an article, certainly not one of any substance, per ]. It really is that simple. Yes, it's a problem. But we can't simply ignore it. It would be better to work with Ste4k and address her (valid) concerns rather than simply complain that, in essence, because we can't have certain content per policy then we should ignore policy. ] 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

::I see what you are saying but how does it differ from this article? ] --] 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

::: Simple: I'm interested in ACIM :-) There are many carp articles. Hopefully, one by one, they attract the attention of people motivated to fix them. ] 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Warning ==

I take it that you have deleted ''without'' discussion the ] which I created earlier, given that you have 'reverted' the three (], ] and ]) articles which I had added to that category before it disappeared, and that you left an unexplained 'warning' on my talk page. All of those articles (and others which I was about to add to it) rely on ] for one side of the debate or the other. Can you please explain your apparently rather draconian reaction, and explain why you do not want to see ] articles which are linked by a common theme of controversy related to the use, interpretation and appropriateness of research, related through a common category reflecting that link. -] 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

*Correct. The road safety articles already are linked by a common theme of controversy, it's ]. As was clear in the deletion debate for the previous category, there is pretty much nothing in road safety which is without at least some element of controversy - but equally there are few if any road safety interventions which are without at least some arguable merit. Replacing the deleted category with something even ''more'' POV is pointless and absurd. The smart move would be to write an encyclopaedic article on ], as suggested in the CFD debate. ] 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

:*You'd ''allow'' me to write ], even though it uses the 'c' word - but would I be able to list the articles that were in the deleted category in it. There is, to me at least, a subtle difference between the generic kind of controversy inherent in most, if not all road safety measures that you allude to, and the so-called ']' supported/opposed measures, or those supported/opposed by research subject to much legitimate ]. Those few articles of the latter types are the items that I wish to group together in a category so that other interested readers can find them in one place without the need to trawl through the lists of innocuous ] items. -] 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

::*DeFacto, as a largely disinterested observer, I must say the above is scarcely coherent. Your attempts at persuasion might be more effective were you to take a bit of time to think through your points and present them cogently. Try to see the following sentence (if we must call it that) as though you hadn't written it: '''There is, to me at least, a subtle difference between the generic kind of controversy inherent in most, if not all road safety measures that you allude to, and the so-called junk science supported/opposed measures, or those supported/opposed by research subject to much legitimate scientific scepticism.''' Now read it again; I'll be back with a handmade sandwich before you're done. ''Five'' commas. ''Two'' slashes. You've given your reader an urgent case of lexical indigestion by the time he's got to "subtle"! ] 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

::*The answer is obviously that yes, you could write an appropriately neutral and balanced article on controversies in road safety because - as I've pointed out more than once - I can't think of a single area of road safety that is entirely free from controversy. A category is meaningless for that reason, and an article can detail the areas of controversy. For example, I can't foresee much controversy about the idea that parking on a busy through-route during peak periods is selfish and antisocial, but clamping someone for parking on a road with no traffic on a Sunday might well be controversial. In my view the majority of controversy stems from details of enforcement. Similarly, you can't call the science which underpins speed limits junk science - that's a label I'd have to reserve for the likes of Paul Smith - but there is some questionable use of statistics and some evidence of fallacious arguments in those who argue for enforcement in some circumstances.
:::Just for the sake of argument, let's take a short trip through ]:
:::*] - motorist centred.
:::*] - motorist centred
:::*] - accident migration, regression to the mean
:::*] - risk compensation theory
:::*] - "selfish bastards" wasn't it?
:::*] - car headbands, risk compensation
:::*] - controversy over which is the source of risk
:::*] - risk compensation theory, pedestrians are not fitted with them
:::*] - obsolete playground-based training, superseded by National Standards
:::*] - no substitute for the real thing
:::*] - supposed massive under-reporting of injuries
:::*] - risk compensation again
:::*] - and again
:::*] - why blame the pedestrian? They use the roads by right, motorists only under license
:::*] - inaccurate but widely used due to larger numbers than (more accurate) fatalities
::: By which time I lost interest. I can see areas of controversy attached to every item in that category, and actually the only real differentiator is the degree of controversy. Incidentally, I'm somewhat surprised you chose not to place ABD in there since they are undoubtedly highly controversial.
::: The whole subject is controversial, there is not even universal agreement over what constititutes safety (safety for whom? from whom?). ] 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

== External Links ==

I read your comment on ] talk page. Thank you for the insight on samsloan.com and ishipress.com. However, the linked on the ], ], ], ], and ] pages is neutral content, is inoffensive, and does not violate any copyrights. The list is actually very helpful when comparing languages of the South Asian-Middle Eastern dialect continuum. Maybe we should keep this link on just these five pages. Thank you for your understanding. ] 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, This article is in need of a bit of NPOV'ing I feel. I don't want to get into a revert war over it - any suggestions appreciated. ] ] 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

:That article reads like an advertisement! I think the first step is to get some profiles from mainstream magazines, if any are available. I'm out of my depth here because I know nothing of that world (even though I work for a company active in the financial markets). I'd also try to find out how the returns his trading made compare with other similar figures. Was he one of Soros' top traders or somewhere in the middle? ] 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

== YTMND ==

Why do you hate YTMND so much? I must know the reason for such an "irrational" opinion! ;D ] 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:I am indifferent to YTMND, but most of the YTMNDs linked contain copyright violations either in the images or the soundtracks. YTMNDers are also engaged in ] and I see no reason to help them along. ] 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
'''Swearing in the edit notes seems a bit over the top for someone who considers YTMND to be immature...''' ] 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:In calling them wankers I was characterising the YTMNDers' action in adding their fads to mainspace article as being essentially masturbation - i.e. providing pleasure only to the perpetrator and generally substantially less enjoyable (if not outright nauseating) for any onlookers. It was a simple factual statement. ] 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
'''Personally I see no difference between what they have done and your response, but will agree with your definition. Maybe someone with less of a compulsion towards self gratification should deal with them in future.''' ] 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:Get back under your bridge or I'll call the big billy-goat gruff to kick the shit out of you again. ] 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
'''No need to involve your wife, I'm merely pointing out that swearing is immature and attention seeking.''' ] 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:I am amazed that you think my wife, who is 5'4" tall, could kick the shit out of you. Clearly your body is as puny as your intellect. ] 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To me,it seems that you provoke YTMND for continuing vandalism,look at the link in the ] talk page. I wish you think of something that they can agree on,so this nonsense will stop. TTFN. --] 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== Delisted DRV ==

To be honest, that DRV was in need of a bit of rougeness. I did warn the user concerned that I thought listing it was a bad idea, and it seems that I was right. With any luck the matter ends here. (Some good did come out of it, as it gave me a chance to notice that the DRV daily subpage hadn't been transcluded). --] 11:37, 21 July 2006 (]]])

== Removing external links from AfD pages ==

I've reverted your "delinking" of ] and ]. We now have ] enabled on pages outside the main namespace, so those links won't contribute to search engine rankings. Thus there is no point in not making them real links. —] <small>(])</small> 12:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:OK, thanks. I will continue to unlink offsite copyvios, I think. ] 12:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

] will make the ] a lot easier to clean up. <b>]]]</b> 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


== Kittie May Ellis ==
Why did you state that this article is unverifiable? In my previous versions I've posted at least 15 secondary, published sources. Are you just reading what other editors have claimed (without any basis I might add). The newspaper the ''Snohomish Tribune'' is a verifiable source just for one. ] 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

== Your signature ==

Second time I've chanced across your name on something - good to get a sense of Wikipedians overlapping, but you really ought to cut down that HTML in your sig. Unless you've written it to look great in a specific browser that I'm unfamiliar with, the following alternative cuts 18 characters off of it:-

:Just zis &lt;b style="border:1px;padding:2px;color:#fff;background:#008;"&gt;Guy&lt;/b&gt; you know?

Although to be honest it does seem a bit jarring and unprofessional to have a big blue word in a signature; I was expecting an excited new Misplaced Pages user rather than an admin, when I hit your userpage. But I guess it's your call. --] 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

:The reason for it is so I can easily spot my sig in long conversations. ] 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

::Well, just so you know that it breaks up the flow for everyone who isn't you, and makes editing slightly disorientating when the sig takes up a full two lines of source (which the abbreviated HTML would at least cut down, if you feel like using it). Misplaced Pages's ] have a few thoughts on this sort of thing, if you've not seen them. --] 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Seen them, enforced them. ] 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

::::My unsolicited vote: It creates no ''real'' problem for anyone. There are things worth griping about; this isn't on the list. ] 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::] <-- Any difference? I like the JzG sig myself... but with my own sig I suppose I'm a bit biased. :-) ''(]])'' 04:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

==Redirects for British style==
For british locations like ], would it be a good/bad idea to create British-location style redirects (i.e. "Somewhere (Shire)" redirects to "Somewhere, Shire")? ] (]·]·]) 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Probably not, unless people are asking or it's a common alias. I live in Reading, Berkshire not Reading (Berkshire), but I do know that St. Albans (Herts) was common usage A Long Time Ago, not sure if it still is. Er.... dunno :-) ] 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::OK....I just remember seeing a user somewhere who used commonwealth english all angry about the comma construction...they made a big deal about the parentheses style, but I guess it isn't all they made it out to be ;) ] (]·]·]) 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

==In case you miss this reply in the noise==
I opposed the Sean Black RfA. I have never had any contact with Sean as an admin, certainly no negative experiences. But on doing research he failed to meet the qualities that I would like to see in an admin. This was not an oppose vote based on malice. I would like to think it was quite objective. Last time I checked people can oppose for any reason they like, although weight will only be given to reasonable rationales. I think that creating a list of those that oppose, for who knows what reason, is well beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour in this community. That does not extend any level of good faith to those that decide to oppose an RfA. So those that question us for asking the role of such a list, with the argument "you need to assume good faith", are totally hypocritical (i don't think you have made this argument but many admins have.) Below is your original comment with my reply. Thanks for taking time to see this from a different perspective. ] ] 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
* Sean was a good admin before, nobody produced any credible evidence that he had abused admin tools, he requested desysopping, resysopping should be a formality. I don't think we should even have had a vote, since there was no reason to desysop him other than his own request. To my reading (based on a quick survey) a number of the Oppose votes were sour grapes from people against whom he'd taken (well-founded) actions. This might be a sampling error, of course. Anyway, ] made a fair case I thought. I invoke the No Big Deal clause, myself. ] 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Guy, you wrote "''nobody produced any credible evidence that he had abused admin tools''". My oppose vote was not based on his use or misuse of the tools. My oppose opinion was based on the fact that he seems to bite people in the process of using the tools. If someone had made any effort to defend my olppose on this basis I may well of reconsidered my vote. Instead there was quite an against those that had expressed this opinion. Such comments are not reallly the best way to try and change someones opinion. On top of that my opinon was further cemented when Sean wrote:
::"''I don't. I compose edit summaries to inform whomever may read them what the edit I'm making is. They sometimes express frustration, because I am sometimes frustrated. They sometimes express humour and good cheer, because I am sometimes happy. They sometimes express apathy, because I am sometimes apathetic. They sometimes express rudeness, because I am sometimes rude. They are sometimes blunt, because I am sometimes blunt. They always express humanity, because I am always human. I see no reason to pretend that I have no emotions under the guise of being "civil"; '''if my emotions are extreme to the point that I will do something I will regret, then I cease editing'''.''"
:I would be more comforted to see him stop editing before he becomes rude, as well as before his emotions become extreme. I look for admins that can stay cool in stressful situations, count to ten before writing the edit summary or recuse themselves from the situation. He may be human but i'd rather not see the worst traits of humanity being expressed from the[REDACTED] admins. Everyone is always talking about community but how can we have a community if people express all their negitivity when people disagree. An admin should be able to reason with those that diagree. I have no problem with admins being firm but i want to seem some sensible rationale too.
:Finally he ignored the very valid question from El C with regard to the B list; El C asked:
::"''I notice that the contents of User:Kelly Martin/B (Deleted revision as of 3 July 2006) features the following . Then, the next edit by Sean Black features the following addition: {{userlinks|Xoloz}} My question, then, is what was meant by that addition, and if you have time, maybe a hint as to the purpose behind the entire thingy.''"
:Why wouldn't he answer such a question if the list was a joke or something trivial. This kind of backroom chatter and list making has no apparent purpose for the benefit of the encylopedia. What ever happened to AGF? It is quoted ''ad naseum'' at those that question the existence of the list. So where is the good faith of those editors that created the list in the first place? Seriously, a list of those that oppose you in an RfA. What good could possibly come from such a list? ElC deserved an answer to this question.
:So, overall, my oppose that start off as quite weak grew stronger and stronger. I am now sure i made the right choice. ] ] 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

::Anyone has the right to oppose (or indeed support) a candidate for any good reason, and that good reason doesn't have to seem like a good reason to anyone else but themselves. But I stand by my comments: he was a good admin before, I see no reason to doubt he'll be a good admin again. Since he voluntarily gave up the sysop bit I think its reapplicaiton should be a formality, absent any evidence that he abused his status before. This is supposed to be no big deal. This is in any case well within the range of closing 'crat's discretion. If you find Sean abusing his admin status there will be plenty of people in line to join the lynch-mob :-) ] 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Missed this earlier. I may have confused you with this original message. I was not soliciting you to change your opinion, or even justify your opinion. Only for you to see that not all the oppose votes were due to negative interactions with Sean and certainly not due to malice. This seemed to be an underlying suspicion throughout the RfA. As far as the closing of the RfA, i had no problem with the closing 'crats discretion. I agree that the bar should not be as high for returning admins. ] ] 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:::: Oh sure. I looked through some, and they did seem to be, but I'd never accuse you of that and I apologise if you saw it as such. I think I stated that it was a very cursory review, and thinking about it I probably concentrated on the names I didn't know from other debates, which would bias the result towards the sour-grapes types. ] 10:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hey JzG, sorry to bother you but would you mind taking another look at the above article? I don't understand how it isn't a copyright violation. It seems to me that a couple of words have been removed and the sentences reversed but it's basically the same text. The second paragraph of the Wiki text is nearly word-for-word:

Wiki text:
:''Lady Hopetoun and Port Jackson Marine Steam Museum, the forerunner of the Sydney Heritage Fleet, was founded in 1965 by a public-spirited individuals to preserve Sydney’s steam yacht "Lady Hopetoun". The organisation later changed it's name to the Sydney Maritime Museum. In 1998 the museum adopted the trading name Sydney Heritage Fleet, which remains the name today''


Aust Heritage Fleet text:
:''The Lady Hopetoun and Port Jackson Marine Steam Museum, the forerunner of the Sydney Heritage Fleet, was founded in 1965 by a group of public-spirited individuals to preserve Sydney’s 1902 VIP steam yacht Lady Hopetoun. The organisation later became known as the Sydney Maritime Museum Limited. In 1998 the museum adopted the trading name Sydney Heritage Fleet. The Fleet now comprises 10 historical vessels which is amongst the largest such collection in Australia.''

Cheers, ] (]) 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:It's a rewording (albeit minor) of a very small subset of the web page, which may therefore be fair use, and the subject is unquestionably encyclopaedic; I say give them the benefit of the doubt and ask the author to clean it up. Or tag it again and see if another admin will bite, I don't claim to be an expert,. just doing my best. ] 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::I know you're doing your best, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just don't understand. And FWIW, the person who posted that article has posted multiple copyvios despite warnings. Thanks anyway, I appreciate your help. ] (]) 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::: No implication implied :-) Looking at it, yes, they are of differing degrees of blatant. I think I might just rouge it up a bit after all. ] 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

==Request for move, Headlight &rarr; Headlamp ==
Attempted to rename ] to '''Headlamp''', unable to do so because ] contains a redirect with an edit history. Rationale: While it is common for the two terms to be used interchangeably in colloquial speech, '''headlamp'''is the technically correct term for the device itself. All regulations and technical specifications worldwide refer to headlamps, and not to "headlights". All manufacturers of such devices consider themselves makers of headlamps, not "headlights". All human-factors and traffic-safety researchers worldwide refer in their works to headlamps, not to "headlights". "Headlight" properly refers to the light itself, produced and distributed by the headlamp(s). This is certainly a distinction that would not be honored in everyday conversation or informal writing, but we're writing an encyclopedia here, so precision counts. Talking about "sealed beam lights" or "round lights" or "rectangular lights" or "replaceable-bulb lights" might be acceptable in a stylistic analysis in which the devices are significantly only by dint of their existence; such usage, though, is technically improper in a discussion of lighting devices. This article's improper title has been a low-level irritant for quite some time; ]'s attempt to standardize on one term, even though s/he picked the wrong one, is the impetus for requesting a pagemove to correct that impropriety. Your assistance would be appreciated. TIA, ] 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)



==reply==
thanks for your message above. i saw kelly gave a reasoned response to the list. Apparently research for an upcoming talk. That sounds reasonable. Now step away from the computer and "get on yer bike". You obviously spend far too much time here according to the charity message above. ;) ] ] 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:I rode both ways to work yesterday and rode in this morning - it's 25 miles each way. Willthat do? ;-) ] 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== FYI ==

] <small>]</small> 06:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Arbitration Request Filed ==

I have asked for abrbitration involving ]. See . Please post any comments you desire to add. ] 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Grr... ==

You closed out the Warders guild AfD just as I was about to make a brilliant point (well, ''I'' thought it was brilliant). :) --] 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
: You owe it to the world to let us know what that brilliant point was! ] 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Even the most notable of gaming guilds/clans, ] and ], don't have articles on them, and probably never will. :) --] 14:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

] 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)]]

== ] by ] ==

I don't know if you remember ]. If so, you'll really love the second round, ]. -- ] 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:I tagged this last night before I went to bed, and didn't have time then to review other contribs. Amazing. I'm at a loss for words. Nice cleanup effort by you, Kinu and Mak. ] 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== The YTMND user template ==

I have restored it per the ], and put in the redirection to where the template code is now, safe on userspace. ] 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== Zazz ==

Mate, There are two sources and none of them is a press release, Where did people get that from? ] 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:Apart fomr the one which is a press release, obviously :-) ] 08:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== SirIsaacBrock ==

I noticed that you were the one to enact the block on {{User|SirIsaacBrock}}, it appears that a user {{User|JukeBox}} has shown up who seems to be interested in Hitler and Dog fighting, SirIsaacBrock's favorite topics. Four edits probably aren't enough for insta-blocking as sockpuppet, and checkuser could take weeks - so maybe you might like to keep an eye out. - ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Hi, if you remember I added the speedy deletion-tag on this article. You have removed it because the notation was right anyway. It isn't. I had created the page and the redirect, but it I forgot a "P". It should be Earl of Berkham"P"sted, an article which I had noticed later exists already. So my creation is wrong written and unused, both things together a good reason to delete it. Greetings ] 07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
* ] is an archaic spelling of ] and is a redirect, so if it is formally a mis-spelling it's a likely one. Redirects are cheap :-) ] 08:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:Well, you've got right, one redirect more won't crush wikipedia's server. Maybe my actual mistake will avoid unsuccessfull searches by other users. Thanks for your explanation. Good day, week, year ... life :-) ] 09:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== WikiWoo ==

I was wondering if you could help me with one of the countless problems I’m having with ]. He’s was messing around with ] (although I admit it was because I redirected one of his garbage pages to it), adding every single tier municipality in Ontario to the list, even though the page is about census divisions, which don’t necessarily correspond, so to fix the trouble I created ] (a page I agree may be far too crowded). On the page I separated single and dual tier municipalities and then subdivided these into type in order to make things at least somewhat manageable. I have explained to WikiWoo more than once, through edit summaries and his talk page, that no information he is attempting to convey is lost in this arrangement. He is ignoring this, however, and pasting the entire list of single tier municipalities, in an unwikified an unorganized format, into the article, claiming that I am censoring him. Now I realize, as you’ll see by reading his talk page, that I am interacting with him very harshly. But the number of ridiculous things he’s done, and the claims of conspiracy and vandalism he’s lobbed at me are really getting to be too much. I really think he needs an administrator to set him straight on some things. <font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
: I am wondering if this is a case of ] or a loose screw. Hard to tell right now; God alone knows what he's trying to do and why. ] 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::Well, he's attepting to show that the Regional governmental structure in Ontario is "bad." In particular, he's dealing with articles related to ], inserting anything he possibly can to try to denegrate the region. I and a couple other people have been having a lot of trouble with him on ] (although he seems to have moved on to something else for today at least). Thanks a lot for your help, and I apologise in advance if I end up coming back to you again and again over him. =( <font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

... any relation? (may be red-linked by the time you read this; you'll have to peek behind the curtain.) ]]] ] 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:No. I think this is the same man as does the video games, though. There is also a New Zealand lawyer and a famous historian by the same name. Common as muck... ] 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== ACIM ==

Would you please look at the discussion page on ACIM under Introduction. It seems that whatever is written for this article, Ste4k is going to obstruct. Thanks--] 02:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For detecting and quashing racist propaganda in Misplaced Pages. ] 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
|}


== Thanks for RfA support and a question ==
== OR Complaints ==


Thanks very much for your support in my recently successful RfA. I appreciated your comment!
I am having trouble understanding your standings on ] in regards to the article ]. Following that argument that all YTMND's are OR, does this mean that all information on YTMND would have to come from outside sources? How would the YTMND Wiki be a viable and acceptable, non-OR source, if it gains an overwhelming majority of info from YTMND's? Would the "YTMND News" be considered OR, since the only source is Max Goldberg?


Since you seem to be online, I just blocked {{user|WillyOffOfWheels}} with account creation disabled as a meme of the infamous WillyOnWheels. Is this appropriate? The guy's feigning ignorance on his talk page. Cheers! -- ] ] ] 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I will be attempting to remove OR from the ] article, but i fear it may be labled as vandalism since it would remove a large part of the article. What steps would you advise me take as a precaution? ] 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
* Of course. He's gaming the system and can be ignored. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:*That's what I figured. -- ] ] ] 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


== That cat == == User:Edgarde/IPC ==


DGG is being commendably considerate of the right to vanish, but actually this is a subpage and is GFDL'd so I've restored it and moved it ot ] for you. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Stop adding the stupid cat thing to articles. It's ] and please do believe that the number of people outside YTMND who care about YTMND fads is between none at all and even less than that. ] 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, who would've thought an image from a long running YTMND fad would belong on the ] article in the fad and meme section? --] 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::See ] and keep it out of the article. Thanks ] 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the insight, anonymous RoadRunner user. --] 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::Strange thosugh this may seem - and I know it will come as an enormous shock to some people - YTMND fads not only fall below the level generally considered globally significant, but are actually negligible as far as pretty much everybody outside YTMND is concerned. As you know, NEMT, you added that cat bullshit to more than just the YTMND article. I deleted ] as a repost. ] 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Examples? The only place I put the image was on the YTMND article in the specific fad section. I don't want to call you a liar and a policy violator, or even an incompetent admin, but hey. --] 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::"" in ]? It's not an image, but it's definitely "that cat bullshit," and fucking around with Misplaced Pages. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 20:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::You're right rodii, it's ''not'' an image. --] 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::... <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Apparently in NEMTworld "thing" and "image" are synonymous. A limited vocabulary indeed. ] 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: ], do I have to put you up on request for intervention? --] 01:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: You're welcome to try. Or you could recognise that what you were doing was vandalism and simply drop it. ] 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


:Super duper! This is everything I would have asked for if I thought I could have it. Thank you a lot. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
== My neck ==


==] opened==
Aim higher, please -- you will hit nothing of value. Seriously, I read you loud and clear.--] 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, JzG. The ] in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the ] for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the ] for suggestions.


For the Arbitration Committee,<br>
== ] ==
- ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


== "Usual crap" ==
Hi, a while ago you undid some vandalism on my talk page and banned the person who did it. Could you explain to the editor at ] that putting conspiracy theories on a federal judge's article is not acceptable. I have explained his sources are questionable-- that is one of his books claims that Clinton was behind the Oaklahoma City bombing. Thanks. ] 05:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think "usual crap" is a civil way to conduct a discussion? ] 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
* Depends. If it's the owner of a website whose article has been deleted coming up with the usual crap about how if we have an article on Facebook then we should have an article on every single social networking site in the known universe, then yes. Actually if they came here themselves I'd just tell them to fuck off. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


== Larry Craig ==
I'm wondering why you removed the infobox from his article. He is, after all, a convicted criminal, and there's no question of this being a BLP issue - U.S. senators are clearly public figures whose criminal behaviour should be publicly reported. ] 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
* {{tl|infobox criminal}} is for people who are first and foremost criminals, as I understand it. But mainly it was about the image, which existed primarily to disparage the subject. I just removed the lot since we already have an appropriate infobox on that page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
** And I restored the image, because... we don't speedily delete things which are "disparaging" if they may be encyclopedically relevant to the article subject. We're not talking about Brian Peppers here, we're talking about a U.S. senator. I find it a very arguable point that a U.S. senator's police mugshot may be quite relevant to an article about a U.S. senator who is now embroiled in a major scandal relating to his criminal activities. That's a discussion worth having, and I don't know which way I fall just yet, but I don't think it should be speedied. ] 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::* Yes we do, ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::* I dispute your contention that a mugshot image is in and of itself unbalanced and disparaging. If placed in proper context, it is part of a balanced encyclopedia biography. A page consisting of nothing but a mugshot and "OMG CRIMINAL" would fit CSD G10, but this is not that. ] 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::::* Things I hate about ] no. 7: it forces us to take a cautious approach and defend people who are, in real life, indefensible. We already have a picture, we know what he looks like. We have citations for the events. We don't need a mugshot to drive home, in your words, "OMG! CRIMINAL!" It adds nothing other than a gleeful celebration of his misfortune. Proverbs 1:26 is a lesson in life for bigots everywhere but a poor practice on Misplaced Pages. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
Dear JzG:
Is this the sort of thing you were hoping for at ]? If I'm on the right track, i'll continue, if not, please clarify. ] 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
* Anything that replaces the crap with cited and neutral content (read: hopefully dry enough to drive off the whack-jobs but interesting enough to keep anyone who is serious about the subject proper) is good. Please do carry on. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I knocked out 8K of uncited crap, a serious amount of COATRACKing, some areas where there was actual promotion of steroetypes, etc., etc. I'm off for some friday night time, but take a look and let me know what you think, perhaps on the talk page there? ] 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


my run through the article. It's 11K shorter, I dropped almost anytthign I saw as unsourced and promoting or just stating a stereotype without review or citaiton in its' section, and so I think it's a stronger article. If it needs moer work, I would appreciate the guidance... ] 04:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding your comments to the discussion page of the Brett Kavanaugh article. A neutral viewpoint can be helpful to improve the article and make it as accurate as possible.


== NYLT ==
Apparently without reading the book, "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," by British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, published by Regnery 1997, C56C has made the charge that the book, "claims that Clinton was behind the Oaklahoma (sic) City bombing." Perhaps C56C found this statement in a citizen's online book review at Amazon.com since the charge appears there. Reading online book reviews is not equal to the task of reading the book.


Would you please elaborate on the {{tl|accuracy}} tag just applied to ]. It is difficult to fix what we don't know is wrong. Thanks. --] 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
C56C used this false claim to unfairly smear the entire book and further allege other "sources are questionable." C56C should be asked to provide a direct quote with the page number from Evans-Pritchard's book to support the outrageous charge. The book either "claims that Clinton was behind the Oklahoma City bombing," or it does not. If the book does not make the claim then it is C56C who is actually the questionable source.
* I'd love to, but the complainant was insufficiently specific. I've asked him to comment on the talk page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


:Thanks. I figure you are the middleman between this and OTRS. I think we have been here before. BTW- {{tl|accuracy}} redirects to {{tl|disputed}}. --] 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
On page five the author did raise this question, "But what if the Clinton administration has not told the full truth about the Oklahoma bombing, as many of the families now suspect?" The blame for not telling the full truth is directed primarily at the Justice Department. Whatever faults are in Evans-Pritchard's book, claiming President Clinton was behind the tragic bombing is not one of them.


== Please enlight me ==
To be fair, the title of the book, "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," may confuse readers to believe that somehow Bill Clinton was to blame. I personally know that privately the author Ambrose Evans-Pritchard objected to the title, but the publisher Regnery insisted on the title. The poorly chosen title may have unfairly cast a shadow over the former President, but the author never even remotely claimed, "that Clinton was behind the Oklahoma City bombing."


Wondering why you just deleted my article on Sigrid Lidströmer. You wrote "lacks significans". So you think she wasn't significant? Since you must know a lot about this - in what way was she unimportant? I'd like to learn that. My ears are open...
Reading the source documents used as references to the Brett Kavanaugh article should be done before discussion or characterizing the sources as "questionable." Loaded words like "conspiracy theory" are not a substitute for good scholarship.
18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you,
* See ]. Any chance you're going to stop arguing about your articles on your family? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
] 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


==]==
:I love conspiracy theories - as a fan of irony and satire they strike me as some of the funniest material out there. When I was an H2G2 researcher I wrote the article on conspiracy theories: The one repeatable feature of all these is that they apply a ] to any obvious, prosaic explanation. What's more likely: a deranged libertarian extremist bombing a Federal building, or the President of the United States arrranging it for, er, some real good reason, honest? Anyway, I have no real opinion here other than that we should take a small-c conservative approach in the case of any living individual. If these theories are really so very plausible then there will be numerous excellent high-quality sources we can cite. If there aren't, well, we know what inference we can draw. Pace Jimbo, I think we are too ready to assume good faith on the part of people who, frankly, fail to demonstrate it. Not saying that's the case here, I'm just getting a bit weary of POV-pushers and soapbox merchants. ] 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Since ] is now a protected redirect to ], I had the thought that ] might do well as a protected redirect too. I'm checking with you because you were the last admin to deal with it. Whaddaya think? --] 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


::The Amazon.com editorial for "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," states the book "connects the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones." As for ]'s book Thomist cited, "The Park Police, the F.B.I., Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Foster's family all concluded that he had killed himself where he was found. But for four years a floating crap game, including Clinton bashers, radio hosts, Net crawlers, kooks, Jerry Falwell and a few journalists, has questioned the verdict, suggesting or insisting that he died elsewhere or by some other hand." Referring to Ruddy's evidence "some of Ruddy's unanswered questions are undoubtedly the normal static of police work." That's of course, if you read Amazon.com and NY Times editorial. Maybe Thomist believes they too are part of the conspiracy? ] 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


::: But have you read the book? Anyway, the solution is to debate on Talk first and steer clear of ]. ] 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


==Sigrid Lidströmer==
:::: I haven't read that book. I haven't read any book or video by ] either. Yet, since both defy commonly held beliefs and are part of a fringe population I can depend on experts in the field. Experts have concluded there was no ] cover up and Hovind is wrong on his beliefs as well.


Hello. You speedied ], saying that the article did not assert significance.
::::: Hovind's work and the criticisms of it are widely available on the net and in print. Criticisms of Hovind do not rely on novel syntheses or interpretaitons of reviews - we can attribute criticisms directly to named authorities in many cases. And the Hovind article is not one of the better examples to look at anyway since opposition to him is on the basis of science not political affiliation. ] 09:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: Hovind is an excellent example because we are talking about evidence in both cases. The conspiracy Thomist wants to add is contrary to evidence presented by official investigators-- I mean three separate, independent investigations (including one that cost 80 million US dollars). Politicial affliations are irrelevant as long as the facts can be backed up with reliable sources. ] 11:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::: If people want to dispute the Amazon.com and NY Times reviews then should take it up with those sources. ] 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


The article is very messy and does not seem to assert major significance. However, it does seem to assert minor significance, indeed, quite a lot more significance than that of many pop singers and Pokemon who are lovingly written up in this "encyclopedia". As I've mentioned ], I don't see it as speediable material and I urge you to restore it. -- ] 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:Guy, it appears that Hoary's account has been hijacked, as he's arguing for keeping an article. I thought she was the translator? ] 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
::] -- ] 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


''If you feel an admin has done you wrong, try talking to them. Nicely.'' I don't merely "feel" but rather I ''think'' that you did wrong to ], an article that was mediocre, perhaps AfD-worthy, but not obviously speedy-worthy. Niceness is hardly my forte, but I'll try: Please undelete this, and, if you wish, take it to AfD. Thank you. -- ] 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me. C56C has been misleading JzG. C56C concealed from JzG that book reviews were used in place of reading actual books or documents and by calling me the name "conspiracy theorist" convinced JzG to issue me a "warning."
:Hello again. No reply, so I moved what was in a scratchpad page of the writer to ]. Of course you're free to AfD it, but I think you'll agree that it's hardly speediable. -- ] 12:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
:* She was a translator. She translated some stuff. Some of this stuff had not been translated before. She corresponded with the author of at least some of the stuff she translated. All we need now is a claim of encyclopaedic notability and we're away. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
::*If you think the subject is short on notability, you are of course very free to send the article to AfD. The steps involved are rather tiresome, of course; so as a gesture of amicability or whatever I'll even send it to AfD for you, if you ask me to. -- ] 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


== BLP Issue ==
I appear to be the only person here who actually read the Official Investigative Report and the two books used as sources. JzG wrote, "If these theories are really so very plausible then there will be numerous excellent high-quality sources we can cite." By "these theories" I assume we are talking about grand jury witness intimidation which is the issue C56C seems unwilling to allow into the article. One "excellent high-quality source" that I have cited is the second highest court in the United States, the Special Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals that released the Official Report. Within the Official Report, the grand jury witness intimidation is discussed on several pages. This court IS the most "excellent high-quality source" to issue an opinion on "these theories."


Is there ''anything'' you can do about this editor's rants on the ] talk page? ]? He claims he represents Ms. Wilding, but all I can think is I sure as hell hope not, for her sake, since I don't have a serious grudge against her (unlike my grudge against ]). I've asked ] to assist with editing the page, but Real77 is chasing all the good editor's away, and no one can get in there to edit. In addition to which the talk page is a stream of indecipherable rants. My concern now is that the talk page looks like such a piece of ranting shit that it will ultimately reflect poorly upon Ms. Wilding and the article as part of its permanent history. I feel this is a legitimate concern, although an unusual one, for a BLP, that an editor claims to be representing the subject of the article, but is indirectly, by their actions, trashing the hell out of the person. It is extremely difficult to impress anything upon this editor, Real77, because of what appears to be a serious English language barrier. I don't know what's going on, but I don't think editors should have unlimited rights to make a living person look like shit on Misplaced Pages, even if they really are representing them. ] 06:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
C56C wrote, "The conspiracy Thomist wants to add (sic) is contrary to evidence presented by official investigators." First, can we agree not to call each other names? Is it necessary to give me the label, "conspiracy Thomist?" Second, the statement is absolutely false that I want to add something contrary to the evidence presented in the Official Report. How would C56C even know this having relied on book reviews (second hand opinions) rather than reading the actual books or Official Report? Name-calling is the result of poor scholarship.
*
*
:Many of the IPs are his, also. And he refers to himself oddly in the first person plural all of the time, having various excuses for this, "my wife is in the room," and "it's none of your business," being two I vaguely recall.
:] 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, nice, he just made a legal threat. ] 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
==DRV Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg ==
You were invloved in the deletion of the image now being addressed at ]. Please consider participating in that discussion. -- <span style="font-family:Kristen ITC;">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></span> 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. '''<span style="color:red;"><strong>→</strong></span>]<sup>&nbsp;♦&nbsp;]</sup>''' 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The references, regarding grand jury witness intimidation, cited in books ARE consistent with the discussion of grand jury witness intimidation found in the Official Report. C56C has now made TWO FALSE statements: 1) That Evans-Pritchard's book "claims that Clinton was behind the Oaklahoma (sic) City bombing." 2) "The conspiracy Thomist wants to add (sic) is contrary to evidence presented by official investigators."


== Chrome (XM) ==
Should Misplaced Pages use these false statements by C56C to determine reliable sources?


Now why on earth did you delete this page 3 times. It is not a7, so I don't know where you got that idea and it is definitley not a G11. Perhaps you don't remember what an a7 is. An a7 is a tag for a blatant advertisement of a product or service. Now was that really an advertisement? No. Every other damn page for an XM channel has not been deleted. You might as well just add XM tags to the other 120 XM Channel pages on Wiki. Perhaps semi-protecting it, but you trying to get that blocked is wrong. Obviously you have no clue as to the policies that have been set fourth here, and i strongly suggest you be instructed in the proper mode of editing wikipedia. I'm contacting a few more administrators.--] 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Only by reading the Official Report will it be clear that I have not offered any ]. I have only presented the facts as they officially are. Absent reading the official document it would be prudent to withhold judgement on novel sytheses. I have been unfairly judged enough by the uninformed. ] 02:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
* I'm just wondering how often I'm going to have to say this. It was an article that ''did not assert notability'' (]). It said this is one of the brands of XM (on which we have an article), I'd have redirected it only ''nobody but us'' refers to it as Chrome (XM), that was a made-up title. I put the link to XM Satellite Radio into Chrome, the disambiguation page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
== ] ==
Please re-visit the discussion. ] 09:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:Don, thanks. ] 10:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Actually, a reliable source isn't as necessary when the facts are easily ]. --] 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
== Your comments regarding my filing for arbitration ==
* You might want to read ], ] and the like. Nothing wrong with reposting with reliable sources, but reposting with the same crap sources is not on. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


What I find funny is that users say that TorrentFreak and the like are not "reliable". However when it comes to popular blogs such as engadget, people immediately seem to find that source "reliable". Excuse me, but I don't see how famous newsapers, blogs, and all that other crap makes you think it's reliable. What if all the sources you call reliable all disappeared into nowhere? It's all crazy talk if you ask me, utter shit actually. Now stop reverting it, PLEASE. ] 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
In your comments on my filing for arbitration which you made earlier . You mentioned "personalise everything, for reasons I am at a loss to understand". You might find those reasons stated on my talk page in comments , in a discussion with Will Beback concerning another matter entirely. Please feel free to contact me in that regard on my talk page. Thanks. ] 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
* I think you may be confusing me with other people. I have never called engadget a reliable source. Please cite reliable sources. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:No, I really don't understand what motivates you to take things personally even when people say they are not personal. Honestly. ] 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:I never said you yourself called it a reliable source. Popular != reliable. ] 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


== Best Products ==


== Vopt AfD ==
Why the revert?
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Best_Products&diff=66406276&oldid=66404240
My input was based on knowledge of SITE's work, which I have researched thoroughly.
:It can go in the SITE article. Sorry, I should have got round to posting at your Talk but I got sidetracked. ] 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::I see what you're saying. However I do feel that the caption of the showroom/store photo should be changed, as typical Best Products showrooms were simple big-box buildings, not the high-concept works that SITE created. That particular photo is of a 1979 piece that incorporated water walls and a greenhouse of sorts within the facade. Definitely atypical.
::: Fair comment. You could make that point (succinctly) in the image caption, perhaps? ] 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Kindly review the responses posted to the ] article ] 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
==Removal of warning on Geogre's page==
* Kindly add the assertions of notability to the article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


I trust you will take another look at the article as well as the AfD discussion and have the good sense to keep the article as revised --] 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your frustration stated at AN/I towards those of us who would like to include school articles in the project. I also respect Geogre's (and others') right to disagree with those of us who feel that school articles are worthwhile. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that in the course of a discussion/argument, it is a personal attack to say "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble" as it obviously refers to some participants in the said discussion. Even with the contradictory defense that he didn't intend it towards anyone specifically, expect that it was intended towards someone else further down the page, it is at the very, very least uncivil. You know as well as I do that people have been reprimanded for similar personal attacks. It doesn't matter that he is a admin or that you are an admin - this sort of condescending personal attack on other editors isn't acceptable (as I've learned from my own past experience). To then remove the warning from his page as "trolling" is offensive in the extreme, and arguably a violation of ]. I have a legitimate issue with him name-calling other editors as "feeble" in the course of an AfD discussion. This has nothing whatever to do with the fact that he holds a different position, I have pointed out that other "inclusionists" have behaved in an uncivil manner on recent AfDs. I also feel it inappropriate to use the patina of adminship to somehow justify his personally attacking other editors by calling them "feeble". I implore you to consider objectively whether or not, in the course of an AfD discussion, referring to other editors as "feeble" is appropriate, especially from an editor with such a long-standing history as Geogre.--] 23:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:The two of you are never going to agree and there's no sense stoking the argument. Neither of you is going to benefit by fighting, both of you are long-term good faith contributors. Walk away, it is just not worth the trouble. ] 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


* But it's still a directory entry. Why not include some of the colour mentioned in the AfD debate? know this is en encyclopaedia, but that article is a dry-as-dust description of what reads as an essentially generic product. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
==]==


== SqueakBox ==
Hi, you might be interested in this MfD which is a consequence of threats by ] and ] to have me blocked, subsequent to the recent deletion review on CTMU in which we both participated. (I think they have misread the relevant policies.) ---] 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Guy, I appreciate your open mindedness about SqueakBox but really he does not invariably meet reason with reason. When my request to not depopulate a category without going through CfD is met by accusations that I'm enamored with the rape victims category, I find this unreasonable. When SqueakBox routinely accuses editors of secret pedophile-supporting agendas, oblivious to the fact that, hey, maybe just maybe some people wouldn't be too happy to be labeled pedophiles for ], I call that unreasonable. That's not to say SqueakBox can't be a productive editor: he often is. But he can also be a tendentious editor. Of course, this is partly explained by his involvement in articles in which edit warring, POV pushing and sockpuppetry are routine. That does not make it any more acceptable. It ''is'' possible to be a member of ] without being a dick with everyone you find in your way, it ''is'' possible to fight POV pushing pedophiles without "boldly" removing a perfectly decent article about an absurdly objectionable subject, it ''is'' possible to fight for tougher applications of BLP without attempting to change one of the fundamental principles of the deletion policy without any sort of discussion . A few weeks ago at ANI, Jimbo commented on the recent controversy with Perverted Justice and said something like "what we need is more passionate anti-pedophile editors who are patient and smart to watch these articles". As I replied, what we need is editors that are patient, smart and as clinical as they can be. Passion makes Misplaced Pages suck. It's why administrators get constant flack, it's why there are revert wars, it's why there are insults flung all over the place and it's ''never'' necessary. Were SqueakBox not fighting on the obvious side of the good guys, he would have been forced to change his ways or leave the project a long time ago. Did you take a look at the diffs I provided on ANI? If not, please do: they are definitely the mark of an editor who behaves in a way that's likely to drive away editors like me who can take ''some'' abuse but do think that at some point it's best to leave the inmates run the asylum. Cheers, ] 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
== Tell me I'm not crazy ==


* As I've said, in my experience he has, which is not to say that others have the same experience, or that he always has. Zealous application of ] is good, and overzealous application should be met with calmness. Passion is not what makes Misplaced Pages suck, ''obsession'' is what does that. Most of the serious problems I've encountered have been with people who are determined to boost their own interests, not with those pursuing ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a look at ]? Interested in an outside comment. It has links to two other AFDs and three other articles (two deleted, but still in Google cache). Looks to me like we keep debating the same article. ] 03:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:It's a fine line between unbdridled passion and obsession and passion stops being ok when it leads you to bulldoze your way through other editors. I suppose it's your right not to take a look at the evidence I provided or to write off SqueakBox's extensive block log as the sign of a passionate editor, but even if your interactions with him have been positive, it's important to point out that many others have found him stubborn, prone to wild accusations and prone to edit warring. And by "other editors" I don't mean sockpuppets of Voice of Britain, I mean myself, ], ], ], ], ], ], to name but a few. I'm grateful for the work that he does but I don't think there's any need for the crap that comes with it. ] 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:I deleted the repost and closed it. Let me know if you see it pop up again. ] 09:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Most of those are Wikifriends of mine, I've not heard from them about it. Regardless, a little patience should pay dividends. He's not some kid, he is a grownup. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps you can ask them then, or perhaps you can take a look at the diffs I provided or, say, ], ]. I'm asking for 10 minutes of your time because I really am genuinely interested in having your thoughts on this. If you read these incidents and conclude that SqueakBox is just a little too enthusiastic about his work and that the problem is the lack of patience from myself, Georgewilliamherbert, Morven, well I guess I want to get advice on how to handle such things, because clearly I can't. ] 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


:I am not obsessed with any subject on wikipedia. We cant have unsourced claims that any living person is a rape victim and I went through the people in that cat on a case by case basis, I certainly made no attempt to depopulate the category as some of the sourced cases where aboslutely left till the cfd passed. I afd'd the NAMBLA article after being asked to do so after being BOLD and redirecting it. ascal, your claim that Sidaway has a problem with me is offensicve and you dont have the evidence to back it up as I have had a good personal relationship with him and we tend to agree on many issues including re possible pedophilia images. This inj itself makes me think you are muck-raking if not actually harrassing me. I dont believe you should handle anything in relation to me, Pascal, as your own behaviour towards me has been far from perfect, eg bringing private emails to my talk page, and even after being warned by El C, being angry that I didnt assume you were an admin when you were not on the admin list nor contactable by meail etc. I have asked for mediation, you are ignoring that request and if this continues an Rfc is probably the only feasible option, and indeed if you want to see me sanctioned arbcom is the only realistic way you willa chieve that. But if you want to leave me alone to get on and edit that would be great. Your campaign against me is anything but, is unwarranted and unwelcome, ] 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
== Request for opinion: ] ==
:And Guy is right that I am not some kid but I feel you, Pascal, are treating me like you are the teacher and I am some unruly schoolkid,m which is so far from the truth that yopu'll have to forgive me if I don't take that approach seriously (I am an adult with serious responsibilities). You have accused me of recklessness etc but I dont see you as being in a position to make that kind of judgement concerning me which is why I would like to see medaition between you and I as the only solution to this issue, other of course than just ignoring each other, live and let live (you seem fine with my edits to the controversial ] so you clearly dont have a problem with many if not most of my main space edits, ] 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Another user has added the NEDM/Happycat information into the ] "Famous British Shorthairs" subsection. In an effort to prevent another revert war over this, I have moved the debate into the ]. Your opinion and vote would be greatly appreciated. --] 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


==Edith Elura Tilton Penrose==
==Gastrich?===
Hi, I was gonna start a stub for ] and noticed you have deleted it 3 times already. She's pretty obscure but very influential. Would it be worth me writing up an entry and then putting it forward for consideration before creating the page or is it a lost cause? I mean is the problem just a lack of assertion of significance, or something else? Thanks ] <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* If a sourced article establishing notability can be written, just go ahead. The last version was, in its entirety: "'''Edith Elura Tilton Penrose''' (], ] in ] &ndash; October, 1996 in ], ]) was an economist." <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


== Blogs as sources ==
{{vandal|Bufordhollis}} created ].
:I deleted the repost, but I don't think this is actually Gastrich. ] 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Your edit on the Roger Elwood article was proper. It's generally held to be a dirty little secret of the industry, alas, with no hardcopy sources to cite. Such is Wikilife: if you can't source, don't put it in. But I've reverted your edit to the article about John M. Ford, since it met the requirements of ] pretty nicely. --] 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
==John Corvino==
* I am very wary of stuff in the blogosphere which lacks an independent corroborating discussion in more reliable sources to attest to its significance. Bloggers have a tendency to blow things out of all proportion. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it your contention that "generic associate professor"s speak to over 100 university campuses ? ] 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
** This is not an ordinary case. It would be like impersonating a favorite uncle at an intimate family reunion! If he had been impersonated, it would have come out in mere moments, and the scandal would have spread throughout the community. A Mike Ford post on ''Making Light'' is pretty much the gold standard for stuff coming from John M. Ford. --] 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:Not uncommon. Lecture tours and all. ] 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::* But do we ''need'' dozens fo quotes from the horse's mouth? We are supposed to reflect what the ''reliable independent sources'' say about him, not simply repeat what he said about himself. I think we're straying too much into a journalistic profile from original sources and away from an encyclopaedic distillation of published material. We are not supposed to be the ones weighing the significance of primary sources. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::If the article was based on such posts, it would of course be absurd. The item which was sourced to that particular post was a trivial one, one well within the bounds of the ] guidelines. --] 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: Trivia is... trivial. Does the article ''really'' need padding? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items ==
==WikiWoo Two==
User {{User|WikiWoo}} seems to have a thing about Ontario regional government bureaucrats. I first noticed that he (or she) has recreated the AfD'ed ] as a redirect to ] (sic), and in checking his (or her) uncovered what seems to be a ] in support of Ontario regional government bureaucrats. I mean, "]" as a redirect to ] (sic)? It look slike admin assistance is required, and as you've apparently dealt with him before... --] | ] 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


You created an AfD over an existing archived AfD at ]. Ideally, you should have created ]. I'm not sure where to go from here. I don't know how to split article histories (if that is even possible.) The best bet may be to simply close the AfD, and revert back to the old version, and relist again at the second nom title, and I guess loose those 11 comments. What do you think? Did you purposely start and AfD over the existing archive?-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
== WikiWoo and his new pages ==


* Twinkle might have done so, which would explain why I could not find the original... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's about time he get a very long block. He's recreated the recently deleted ], ] and ] and redirected them (along with ] to ]. He obviously has no regard for any rules here. <font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


== Clue help neded ==
== ] ==
Over on BLPN. I from the SWK talk page, which implicitly compared him with Hitler and other notorious historical figures. Now I'm being attacked as a censor. Some cluebat assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! ] 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


== Smile! ==
Can you hop over to ]? Rob is persisting with this vandalism nonsense, to the point where he's edit warring with popups. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] '''Hello JzG''', Meateater has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the ] by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small></div><!-- Template:Smile --> ] 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
JzG: I appreciate that you're trying to be "fair" as you perceive it. However, we all know that if I were to go over to ], redirect it to ], then after that action was reversed, open an MfD on it, then when the consensus was developing on that MFD to retain the contents of the page (what else is there to retain, I might ask?) was clearly forming, to go ahead and REPEATEDLY blank the contents while the MfD is still pending I would earn myself a block faster than you can spell B-E-E-F-S-T-E-W. I understand that "admins stick together" around here and all that, but the fact is that AMIB is acting unilaterally and in opposition to the clear consensus developing at the MfD in question. I find it troubling that the only thing you seem to be able to say is: "Come back in 24h". You know quite well that any regular editor would not be able to get away with this clearly disruptive behavior. Irrespective of all other considerations, blatantly blanking a page while it is under consideration for MfD is vandalism, plain and simple. It is no wonder that so many users on[REDACTED] today complain that the collegiality of admins has become a pernicious cloak for their bad behavior.--] 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:Nicodemus, the obduracy of you and a small group of others has stymied any attempt to come to a compromise, and you have effectively implemented a rule which goes entirely against long-standing policy and guidelines - in no other area would stub articles which are simply a restatement of te article title be tolerated, let alone tenaciously defended at AfD by reference to an essay which failed to achieve consensus for adoption as a guideline. It takes a great deal of work to wind up A Man In Black, but you have succeeded. With luck things will calm down, but this wil not happen as long as you continue pouring petrol on the flames. ] 07:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


== You deleted an article against consensus == == Why is 2010 in film protected? ==


I have put a reference to 2010 in film in articles for upcoming Narnia movies, but the page title is protected from creation. Why?] 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You deleted the article ]. You had been edit warring there and violated the rules about biographies of living people. You showed no willingness to resolve the conflict. I had asked for a third opinion, you ignore it and delete the article even though your suggestion to merge it had failed. You can delete my messages as "trolling" but you cannot deny that you abuse your administrative powers. ] 23:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:Because Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Any such assertions are at this point pure speculation. --] 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:Nope. I ''deleted'' nothing, I ''redirected'' Walsh and Ballester to an article which included the text which was otherwise virttually identical between the two, there being almost nothing in either of them other than the book. There was no consensus to merge to Armstrong, but no consensus is needed to merge two article which have dulplicate content. In fact, it's encouraged. No admin tools were used. ] 07:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:01, 12 February 2023

de:Benutzer Diskussion:JzG

JzG essay

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Me_and_Wikipedia

Don't let the trolls push you out of here. We need you.--MONGO 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy, for that excellent essay.
Don't let the bastards grind you down. Cheers, CWC 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent essay. Please come back when you've cleared your head. . --Tbeatty 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, excellent essay. I agree with almost all your points, but - mostly, as technicality - I disagree with 'The Wild West'. I believe there are hundreds of millions of articles we are still missing :). PS. You know, I am stalked by my own 'Rfwoolf'. And the ArbCom has done nothing to stop him. I do wonder if such users will bring the project down... PS2. Please come back, don't leave us, yadda yadda - we had our differences but I believe we need people like you in the project. Hope to see you around,-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you restore the 7000+ edits to your talk page? As you've returned to editing, it really should not stay deleted. Natalie 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Addiction to editing on Wikiulosia will likely cause the loss of job and family. The "me disease" is harmful. 59.151.29.136 14:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
JzG, I totally *get* where you are coming from, but, selfishly, I will MISS YOU around... --Zeraeph 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletions...

(I hope I type in this correctly in the correct space without deleting anything) Well I have not written it myself, since I'm not neutral perhaps, but I asked for my friends to open an account an I started to wirte something but that was deleted, an then I asked for professional help. Of course writing about family is a bad idea, but is it forbidden? And regarding the deletion of a talk page today that WAS a misstake, I have problem with my connection and I typed while the test was marked and I couldn't restore. OK, sorry, is that fixed?? I just kindly ask you to help me to keep the pages (two of those that we are debating), I have collected so much info to my friends who have helped me and anyone else can offcourse change the page if you like!!--NGL 14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs)

Oops

I didn't see your edits, until I went through them again. Well, I'm deleting all Bold textthe external links until it can be figured out what is going on, and until notability for the individual articles established. I think the individual articles should just be speedied. KP Botany 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Joy, joy, joy!!!

Truly happy to see you back and supplying your usual straight talk. ;-) Take care, FloNight 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye, rock on! Pete.Hurd 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ditto! Singularity 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Finished your redux for you

You probably lost interest, but just in case This is finished and sorted. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Hi JzG, Glad to see you are back! While I realize that this may not be the best time for this, and the personal pain that this page has caused you, there is an WP:SPA running amok on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine making personal attacks and generally making a mess of the article. I tried the ArbCom enforcement board, but an admin was unwilling to block as the WP:SPA has made a few minor edits (mostly unnecessary capitalization or wikilinks) in other articles. As you are very familiar with the editing history of the page, I would be very interested to have your opinion on it, however, I would understand if you do not wish to visit this page again. Thanks, Leuko 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Leuko 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, JzG. I noticed that you placed a full-protection template on the page, however the page is only semi-protected. I would endorse full protection to put an end to this counter-productive edit-warring. Thanks, Leuko 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clue deficiency. Fixed now. Frankly I think the project would be better off if that article were a lot shorter. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack targeting you

Toomas Hendrik Ilves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) made a personal attack targeting you in the now deleted article JzG. I thought that you would like to know about this in case this user is stalking you and you did not know about it. This user also wrote another attack article on another administrator in the now deleted article Moreschi. Jesse Viviano 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I make you distressed with the above notice, but I feel that administrators should stick together and help each other withstand trolls. By the way, due to the attacks, this account now has a final warning regarding attacks. Jesse Viviano 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this troll is indef blocked by someone else. Jesse Viviano 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Could also have been username blocked. No biggie, though, just a garden-variety troll. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian Movement

Dont agree with your claim that protestant is the same as sectarian. Two completely different things.BigDunc 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The THF thing

Guy, I think you have done a good job of remaining neutral and fair in this dispute, and I will go out on a limb and say THF would agree. Would you be willing to open an ArbCom case to iron this out? I don't think it would be a good idea for either THF or myself to do it, because I think neither of us has the ability to present the questions posed in a productive manner. --David Shankbone 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't know me but...

Hello JzG, SheffieldSteel has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Welcome back

Welcome back! I hope that your WikiBreak was enjoyable/restful/(insert other adjective as appropriate : )

Whether I may or may not agree with your opinion in any specific instance is immaterial (though imo, I think you do try to be fair). Imho I think you (among many others) do a necessary, but often underappreciated, set of tasks around here, and it's nice to see you "back at it". : )

I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


fring

hi there

as per your comment in the afd "Delete on balance, I think. The content is advertorial in style, and the references all appear to be traceable back to press releases and other non-independent sources. I don't think this is making its mark, and I suspect that the article is part of a campaign to fix that. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)"

The idea of this article is to educate people. Please help me edit the article so that it is not advertising. I don't understand what you mean about the references, also what is the difference between the fring article and the skype, Pidgin IM, ICQ, twitter and Googletalk articles, the list is endless. I used those articles as samples when making the fring article, so if fring goes then the others must also go must'nt they?

now i am confused please help me. Thanx simon Goplett 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, you'd need to pick someone who actually cares about that product. All I see is something being promoted on Misplaced Pages, and I'm not big on that. Comparison with massive global players like Skype and ICQ is unhelpful - a bit like asking that your garage band be included because we have an article on The Beatles. You need to find substantial critical (as in analytical) editorial comment about the company, not mere reprints of press releases. A writeup of the company in one of the major business magazines is always a good place to start. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you at least tell me what is viewed as advertising in the article so I can remove that text.

mmm so if I understand you correctly if fring becomes a massive global player then they can get to advertise on wiki like Skype and ICQ? Either the article is an advert or it isnt, even global players like skype and ICQ can't have advertising space?? or am i wrong. The article is not intended as advertising! fring is a global player in over a 150 countries, may i ask what defines a global player? Please help me not to loose my confidence in wikipedia. It seems to me that even if there is no advertising in the article they will still delete it. Goplett 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Welcome back.

Thanks for your support at WP:AN/I. I was, in fact, wrong about the specific incident that set me off, but right on the generalities of the situation and -- I'm glad to hear you say -- right, essentially, on the policy issue. I'd give you one of Raul's Common Sense Bricks, but I don't feel comfortable giving out someone else's barnstars, and besides, you already have one, it looks like.

As I said at WP:AN/I, NeutralHomer doesn't seem able to track subtlety very well, so I don't know whether it will do any good or whether he will fall back on the vaguely conspiratorial language he resorts to when I'm not summarily banned from Misplaced Pages on his say-so. I know which way to bet, though.

Again, thank you, and welcome back. --Calton | Talk 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well

Hi,

Since you've directly rebuffed personal dialog, I will be moving the article back to mainspace for the duration of DRV, as I feel your move was improper, and you have chosen not to offer an explanation. I request that you do not blank this message (actually, I'd like you to restore my other one too) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I did offer an explanation (at DRV). I'm not opposed to dialogue, but I don't see that spreading it to multiple venues helps much. I am not very active right now, and didn't see much point. I also want to avoid the vast talk pages that I have historically had, they don't load on my Blackberry and take months to load over 3G. Nothing personal, you understand. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • While I gladly accept your explanation, I was on the verge of taking it personally for a minute there! :) I really never understand when people blank individual messages off their userpages, especially if the message expresses a concern over a prior lack of communication. Anyway, I hope my explanation at the DRV meets your satisfaction, because the course of action I pursued was quite typical. Perhaps, being less active, one might find it even more prudent to consult with others, more involved in a given set of circumstances, before assuming that "something is fishy". Just a suggestion for the future. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see you back in the saddle. Illegitimi non carborundum. Raymond Arritt 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - good to see you back. Orderinchaos 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

...for correcting me on the GFDL thing. I was thinking that it didn't matter if the stuff was copied back to the creator's userspace, but you're absolutely right, your way makes more sense. VigilancePrime has the makings of a great contributor to our community, and I would like to mentor him/her past any inadvertant mistakes; I have to admit that Calton's rude messages on that talk page raised my hackles, because I don't want to lose a productive member due to something stupid and unnecessary. Thanks again. Respectfully - Videmus Omnia 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem, VigilancePrime's error was small but worth correcting, I'm sure he won't do it again. He also needs to remove the laundry list of vandals from his user page. I'm not being drawn on Calton. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks for the advice, I will follow it. I haven't been sure how much of a case to build at this point, so I have focused on generalities with a few diffs. If I have been going about it wrong at this point, let me know, because I can supply ample diffs, although I figured since the case has not proceeded it would be better to wait until it does. --David Shankbone 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue

An AfD was put up by a relatively new contributor, Ontheveldt (talk · contribs · logs), as his 3rd contribution to en.Misplaced Pages. His second contribution to Misplaced Pages was to create the category, People from Middletown, Ohio, Dr Jan Adams' hometown. However, instead of immediately adding Dr Jan Adams to this category, he immediately nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion. I suspect this is personal between Ontheveldt and Dr Jan Adams, however, I'm on wiki-break, and if you or someone watching your talk page, would monitor this situation if something more develops, I would appreciate it? Yes, yes, I know everyone is thinking, "Damn, Ontheveldt is more[REDACTED] savvy in just 2 edits than KP Botany will ever be." Be that as it may, BLPs and agendas don't mix well on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. KP Botany 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiya

Good to see you again! >Radiant< 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! William Pietri 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another strange article

After the COI post at WP:AN, I thought I'd point out Malie Hidarnejad to you. What do you make of that? Carcharoth 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

resolved

hi I noticed on my complaint about user MJis4freaks you have "resolved" it, how? I cant see anything on his user page. Let me no. Realist2 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this user thinks that there should be a Blocked section on his userpage or have one of those indefinitely blocked templates on his/her userpage (like {{Banned user}}). x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Just a note...you told VigilancePrime that Calton is an "experienced administrator". No, he isn't, actually. He's not an admin. And isn't that the MOST important thing on Misplaced Pages? That the information is correct, no matter how you go about wording it or how rude you are when you say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:CyclePat

Just a notification that not only hasn't he given up, he seems determined to escalate things. Note your name on the case. --Calton | Talk 11:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy, just out of courtesy, I'm letting you know that I put an RFArb in for CyclePat as you suggested to do so, but as you're named as a party, you may still wish to comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#CyclePat. Best of luck :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, thanks. Needs to be sorted once and for all, I think. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination)

Er, forget something? --Calton | Talk 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Good one, SqueakBox 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No way in hell it should be deleted in my opinion, Guy, looking at the last just about unanimous AfD to keep, but I'll sit back now that I've commented and tag the SPA's as they appear (one already, what's the over/under, 5, 10?) SirFozzie 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No real opinion, Murphy asked so I passed it on, which is only fair after all. Guy 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.81.203 (talk)

Guy, I really wish you'd simply let Don Murphy sue for Libel. He's unlikely to have a case, and we could use some precedent. Further, the incredibly contentious nature of his entire presence as a pair of words anywhere on Misplaced Pages's already resulted in the loss of H, after threats. I don't know why the OFFICE chickened out back then, except that H's leaving meant the issue was 'settled', but really, this is above the pay grade of all the volunteers here. That said, if there's a deletion, which looks unlikely, please salt the earth there, so we can simply avoid this ever again. ThuranX 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

proms

Went to the proms today - Beethoven, Brahms, surprise extra the Academic Festival Overture, saw Joanna Lumley, met Richard Stilgoe and ran into a friend from the horn society. Good evening out! Guy 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-help on help page

Hi, while glancing at your help page, I noticed a section at the end that does not look like it belongs there, but rather somewhere else. Check it out. Jjamison 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, Guy!!! -- Avi 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm slow on the uptake. -- Avi 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gastrich's latest petition

It is my belief that some of the sock puppets aren't Gastrich. I have reason to believe that User:Hugo the Hippo is a sock puppet of banned user User_talk:Bible John. This in no way excuses Gastrich's behavior, and in fact given his history the accusation is justified, but pointing out that his claim that he is being framed isn't entirely false. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • And it's my belief that some of them are - and in any case it doesn't matter. There are two things Gastrich wants: to promote Gastrich, and to promote his agenda. Neither of those is compatible with policy. He is incapable fo editing within policy, he misperceives his own bias as neutrality, and I would be staggered if any other admin who has dealt with him would give you any answer other than "hell no!" Guy (Help!) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


The Special Barnstar
To Guy: For his administrative actions in the most recent Gastrich affair, showing patience, objectivity, fairness, and understanding of all related issues. - Nascentatheist 05:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

PDMA

Why did you delete the PDMA article? Nzgabriel 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You note that you believe I am connected with the PDMA organisation which is untrue . Nzgabriel 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I did, first time (I believe I found the link at WP:COIN). This time I did not. But that is not relevant. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proab

Hi JzG,

I didn't remove the notice. I archived it because it was fully addressed + there is no reason to insist in shouting personal information on the streets. Nothing is achieved by your revert of mine . --Aminz 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for your response JzG. Please discuss it in the talk page of the relevant page where I opened a section explaining my edit. --Aminz 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and you've been waiting for a whole 20 minutes at 8:30am my local time, which time I spent getting ready for work. The issue is not "addressed", it is a notice of an arbitration enforcement. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
JzG, you blocked Proab because you wanted for people to see his personal identity for 24 hours. "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". You even opposed its archival. even after the issue was discussed by Arbcom members and Morven wrote a summary of the discussion. I'll leave the issue. The notice is there. Enjoy it! --Aminz 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have looked into it more since then. The original thing that was removed was a complaint with diffs and links that was problematic. Morven's notice was a factual statement with no external links. If people have a problem with this then they need to take it up with the arbitrators. I am not comfortable with multiply-blocked edit warriors removing this or any other arbitration notice. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. I archived it because the case was brought to the attention of the committee and as a result Proab was placed on probation. That's it. The rest is your desire for "people to see it". To let them know of the personal identity of a[REDACTED] user. That was the logic behind your block: "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". Proab had only informed the Office, one arbitrator and a number of admins. He hadn't informed all arbitrators and admins; and that was certainly his error, but maybe he couldn't have informed "all" admins because someone was about to reveal his identity.
JzG, I am a human being and as much as you are, having a physical brain working in a similar way as yours. I come here with my arguments not with my personality or my contribution list or others. Please comment on the statements, not on the editors. --Aminz 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The WP:AE post was drawing this to the attention of the wider community. Above all, the problem is entirely of Proabivouac's own making - he did not have to evade his ArbCom sanctions and he did not have to go straight back to the same problematic behaviour. I have asked ArbCom to clarify. Now drop it. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That Proab acted incorrectly is clear. Yes, at times he may have shown problematic behaviour but this doesn't justify a straight generalization. He is a generally good and smart editor and I think there are many many editors on[REDACTED] who will agree with me.
Thanks for asking for clarification from ArbCom. It is none of business anyways. Peace :) --Aminz 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ye,s it is ArbCom's business, and they can make the call. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On the same subject, is there any paticular reason the block isnt quite considerably long because of his use of sockpuppets to evade the sanctions? Or is arbcom dealing? Viridae 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You are free to block him for longer, I guess. I don't think what he did was especially bad, but causing drama is only likely to draw more attention to the thing he'd rather hide. It's fine for an editor to change accounts to protect their real-world identity, but it's not fine for them to change accounts in order to evade a sanction. It's fine to change accounts to distance oneself from past misdeed,s, it's not fine to do it in order to distance oneself from the consequences of such misdeeds and thereby gain time to carry on the same problem behaviour. I'm undecided about whether Proabivouac is a net positive to the project. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac has been the target of sustained harassment, some from pov warriors and some from banned users running socks. In spite of it he does a lot of good scholarly work on some difficult pages, and makes a significant positive contribution. More than most editors, people of differing views recognize the value of his work. Tom Harrison 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to take your word on that. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrome (XM)

I have noticed you have deleted the channel page a second time after having a stub tag placed on the page. I do not know your definition of content-free, but that page does have information on it that is of value. If you disagree with this, please expand the page with more content or ask other editors to edit the page before outright deleting the page. TravKoolBreeze 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chrome (XM). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TravKoolBreeze 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO)

On 9/7 you deleted these three entries: Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO). After reading your cited justification for the deletion, we've discovered that there are some footnotes that referenced press releases and the company website that, while common in other notable corporate profiles, did indeed violate the terms of the policy and will be revised or deleted. Aside from those points, the entries did not contain promotional language and there was strict adherence to referencing third party sources for every factual claim, including Forbes, the NY Times and the Financial Times. As a corporation, Travelport exceeds the criteria for being noteworthy in the context of companies listed on the Misplaced Pages "List of American Companies" with 2006 revenue of $2.6 billion, approx. 7,500 employees and operations in 145 countries. The company is also an important part of the Orbitz and Blackstone stories, both of which recently became public companies. In addition to his relevance to Travelport, Jeff Clarke was also an integral part of one of the largest mergers in the history of the PC industry (HP/Compaq). References for these types of claims were included in the original entries.

Were there any other problems with the entries other than what was outlined in CSD G11? Since the basic criteria for Misplaced Pages content appears to have been met, I'd like to take your feedback and improve the entries. TP kelli 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hampl, Punto, Leutgeb ...

Hello. Thank you for your greetings. Sorry, because my english is also "not up to this". I'm a Horn player als amateur but i'm interrestet in history of horn and of horn players like Hampl etc. So i wish you, to make no "kikser" on your horn. --- 217.233.122.176 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.122.176 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Motorized Bicycles

Thanks for your help pruning the external links on the Motorized bicycles page! Your help is very... helpful! Fbagatelleblack 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you were wondering...

...this is typical behaviour of this user when interacting with others, as summarized here. Icemuon 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic Magazine deletion

I would like to know why the page for Republic Magazine was deleted. This was the answer YOU gave: (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising Bi-monthly, started in July? That's, what, two or three issues so far? No chance.)

What dont you understand about the term "bi-monthly"?? Bi-monthly is EVERY TWO MONTHS. The first issue came out in July and was for "July/August", the 2nd issue is out NOW and is for "September/October". There is only TWO issues in existence, July/August and September/October. Bi-monthly-----> every TWO months, not bi-weekly, which is twice a month. Did you think I was referring to bi-weekly? You must have. I would like the page back up. I dont appreciate you just deleting it without being warned. If I was warned, I could have told you the meaning of the term "bi-monthly" in advance.

I dont even understand your reason why it was deleted. You said "started in July? thats, what, two or three issues so far? no chance". I dont even understand that. How many issues did you think there should have been since July? If it was bi-weekly that would mean about 5 issues would exist. If it was monthly, about 3 issues would exist. I did not say how many issues were in existence on the page. I just mentioned underneath the picture of the magazine with Ron Paul on it that it was the 2nd issue----which was CORRECT, since the 2nd issue is for September/October. What exactly did you not understand? Im not trying to be smartassed---I really dont know what you misinterpreted. Please put the page back up, because if it's not, I will know it was removed out of biased reasons. I'm a writer, I will do a story on wikipedia's blatant censorship if it's not restored. I will have the proof, so it wont be libel. 24.170.225.64 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • This is an encycloapedia. It exists to document that whicih is already verifiably significant, not promote that which people hope one day will be. Political activist magazines are a dime a dozen, and this one only just shipped its second issue. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the reverts and re-reverts?

Eeeek. Whats going on, Guy? Rockpocket 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Was kinda wondering too ... - Alison ☺ 08:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh! I know what that's like. 1:30am here and I'm stuck in work. Get some sleep, the two of you! :) - Alison ☺ 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
09:29 here, and into the second cup of coffee - I'll be awake Real Soon Now. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha. No worries. I just thought for a moment the troll had cloned your account somehow and was carrying on his revert spree. At this time of night anything seems possible! Rockpocket 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

BIG Daddy M

Regarding this, who did you suspect him of being? Just curious, but his tone is very much alike to this guy's, not to mention the fact that this is another editor who wars for no reason and edits Wrestling-related and comic-related articles. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant no harm, there's no further evidence to support this theory anyway. Sorry for the inconvenience. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Merge

You may be interested in Talk:California Biblical University and Seminary#Merge proposal. KillerChihuahua 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OTRS Question

I noticed you made a deletion related to this. Didn't know if you wanted to reply to it or not. Just a heads up more than anything. Have a great day. ^demon 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. I always think "I nuked it" looks less than caring in these circumstances, but it's what it needed; better to say "it has been deleted as failing blah blah" and have it come from an independent individual, IMO. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work, keep it up

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For detecting and quashing racist propaganda in Misplaced Pages. TeaDrinker 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for RfA support and a question

Thanks very much for your support in my recently successful RfA. I appreciated your comment!

Since you seem to be online, I just blocked WillyOffOfWheels (talk · contribs) with account creation disabled as a meme of the infamous WillyOnWheels. Is this appropriate? The guy's feigning ignorance on his talk page. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 contribs 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Edgarde/IPC

DGG is being commendably considerate of the right to vanish, but actually this is a subpage and is GFDL'd so I've restored it and moved it ot User:Edgarde/IPC for you. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Super duper! This is everything I would have asked for if I thought I could have it. Thank you a lot. / edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, JzG. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Usual crap"

Do you really think "usual crap" is a civil way to conduct a discussion? Kappa 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Depends. If it's the owner of a website whose article has been deleted coming up with the usual crap about how if we have an article on Facebook then we should have an article on every single social networking site in the known universe, then yes. Actually if they came here themselves I'd just tell them to fuck off. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig

I'm wondering why you removed the infobox from his article. He is, after all, a convicted criminal, and there's no question of this being a BLP issue - U.S. senators are clearly public figures whose criminal behaviour should be publicly reported. FCYTravis 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • {{infobox criminal}} is for people who are first and foremost criminals, as I understand it. But mainly it was about the image, which existed primarily to disparage the subject. I just removed the lot since we already have an appropriate infobox on that page. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And I restored the image, because... we don't speedily delete things which are "disparaging" if they may be encyclopedically relevant to the article subject. We're not talking about Brian Peppers here, we're talking about a U.S. senator. I find it a very arguable point that a U.S. senator's police mugshot may be quite relevant to an article about a U.S. senator who is now embroiled in a major scandal relating to his criminal activities. That's a discussion worth having, and I don't know which way I fall just yet, but I don't think it should be speedied. FCYTravis 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I dispute your contention that a mugshot image is in and of itself unbalanced and disparaging. If placed in proper context, it is part of a balanced encyclopedia biography. A page consisting of nothing but a mugshot and "OMG CRIMINAL" would fit CSD G10, but this is not that. FCYTravis 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Things I hate about WP:BLP no. 7: it forces us to take a cautious approach and defend people who are, in real life, indefensible. We already have a picture, we know what he looks like. We have citations for the events. We don't need a mugshot to drive home, in your words, "OMG! CRIMINAL!" It adds nothing other than a gleeful celebration of his misfortune. Proverbs 1:26 is a lesson in life for bigots everywhere but a poor practice on Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians

Is this the sort of thing you were hoping for at Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians? If I'm on the right track, i'll continue, if not, please clarify. ThuranX 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Anything that replaces the crap with cited and neutral content (read: hopefully dry enough to drive off the whack-jobs but interesting enough to keep anyone who is serious about the subject proper) is good. Please do carry on. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I knocked out 8K of uncited crap, a serious amount of COATRACKing, some areas where there was actual promotion of steroetypes, etc., etc. I'm off for some friday night time, but take a look and let me know what you think, perhaps on the talk page there? ThuranX 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

finished my run through the article. It's 11K shorter, I dropped almost anytthign I saw as unsourced and promoting or just stating a stereotype without review or citaiton in its' section, and so I think it's a stronger article. If it needs moer work, I would appreciate the guidance... ThuranX 04:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NYLT

Would you please elaborate on the {{accuracy}} tag just applied to National Youth Leadership Training. It is difficult to fix what we don't know is wrong. Thanks. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I figure you are the middleman between this and OTRS. I think we have been here before. BTW- {{accuracy}} redirects to {{disputed}}. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please enlight me

Wondering why you just deleted my article on Sigrid Lidströmer. You wrote "lacks significans". So you think she wasn't significant? Since you must know a lot about this - in what way was she unimportant? I'd like to learn that. My ears are open... 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Angry Nintendo Nerd

Since Angry Video Game Nerd is now a protected redirect to ScrewAttack, I had the thought that Angry Nintendo Nerd might do well as a protected redirect too. I'm checking with you because you were the last admin to deal with it. Whaddaya think? --UsaSatsui 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Sigrid Lidströmer

Hello. You speedied Sigrid Lidströmer, saying that the article did not assert significance.

The article is very messy and does not seem to assert major significance. However, it does seem to assert minor significance, indeed, quite a lot more significance than that of many pop singers and Pokemon who are lovingly written up in this "encyclopedia". As I've mentioned here, I don't see it as speediable material and I urge you to restore it. -- Hoary 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy, it appears that Hoary's account has been hijacked, as he's arguing for keeping an article. I thought she was the translator? KP Botany 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been precedents. -- Hoary 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you feel an admin has done you wrong, try talking to them. Nicely. I don't merely "feel" but rather I think that you did wrong to Sigrid Lidströmer, an article that was mediocre, perhaps AfD-worthy, but not obviously speedy-worthy. Niceness is hardly my forte, but I'll try: Please undelete this, and, if you wish, take it to AfD. Thank you. -- Hoary 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. No reply, so I moved what was in a scratchpad page of the writer to Sigrid Lidströmer. Of course you're free to AfD it, but I think you'll agree that it's hardly speediable. -- Hoary 12:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • She was a translator. She translated some stuff. Some of this stuff had not been translated before. She corresponded with the author of at least some of the stuff she translated. All we need now is a claim of encyclopaedic notability and we're away. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you think the subject is short on notability, you are of course very free to send the article to AfD. The steps involved are rather tiresome, of course; so as a gesture of amicability or whatever I'll even send it to AfD for you, if you ask me to. -- Hoary 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP Issue

Is there anything you can do about this editor's rants on the Anna Wilding talk page? User:Real77? He claims he represents Ms. Wilding, but all I can think is I sure as hell hope not, for her sake, since I don't have a serious grudge against her (unlike my grudge against User:Hoary). I've asked User:Acalamari to assist with editing the page, but Real77 is chasing all the good editor's away, and no one can get in there to edit. In addition to which the talk page is a stream of indecipherable rants. My concern now is that the talk page looks like such a piece of ranting shit that it will ultimately reflect poorly upon Ms. Wilding and the article as part of its permanent history. I feel this is a legitimate concern, although an unusual one, for a BLP, that an editor claims to be representing the subject of the article, but is indirectly, by their actions, trashing the hell out of the person. It is extremely difficult to impress anything upon this editor, Real77, because of what appears to be a serious English language barrier. I don't know what's going on, but I don't think editors should have unlimited rights to make a living person look like shit on Misplaced Pages, even if they really are representing them. KP Botany 06:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Many of the IPs are his, also. And he refers to himself oddly in the first person plural all of the time, having various excuses for this, "my wife is in the room," and "it's none of your business," being two I vaguely recall.
KP Botany 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, nice, he just made a legal threat. KP Botany 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg

You were invloved in the deletion of the image now being addressed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Image:Larry_Craig_mugshot.jpg. Please consider participating in that discussion. -- Jreferee 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. →Lwalt 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrome (XM)

Now why on earth did you delete this page 3 times. It is not a7, so I don't know where you got that idea and it is definitley not a G11. Perhaps you don't remember what an a7 is. An a7 is a tag for a blatant advertisement of a product or service. Now was that really an advertisement? No. Every other damn page for an XM channel has not been deleted. You might as well just add XM tags to the other 120 XM Channel pages on Wiki. Perhaps semi-protecting it, but you trying to get that blocked is wrong. Obviously you have no clue as to the policies that have been set fourth here, and i strongly suggest you be instructed in the proper mode of editing wikipedia. I'm contacting a few more administrators.--NightRider63 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm just wondering how often I'm going to have to say this. It was an article that did not assert notability (WP:CSD#A7). It said this is one of the brands of XM (on which we have an article), I'd have redirected it only nobody but us refers to it as Chrome (XM), that was a made-up title. I put the link to XM Satellite Radio into Chrome, the disambiguation page. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaDefender

Actually, a reliable source isn't as necessary when the facts are easily verifiable. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What I find funny is that users say that TorrentFreak and the like are not "reliable". However when it comes to popular blogs such as engadget, people immediately seem to find that source "reliable". Excuse me, but I don't see how famous newsapers, blogs, and all that other crap makes you think it's reliable. What if all the sources you call reliable all disappeared into nowhere? It's all crazy talk if you ask me, utter shit actually. Now stop reverting it, PLEASE. 208.127.155.20 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said you yourself called it a reliable source. Popular != reliable. 208.127.155.20 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Vopt AfD

Kindly review the responses posted to the Vopt article RitaSkeeter 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust you will take another look at the article as well as the AfD discussion and have the good sense to keep the article as revised --RitaSkeeter 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • But it's still a directory entry. Why not include some of the colour mentioned in the AfD debate? know this is en encyclopaedia, but that article is a dry-as-dust description of what reads as an essentially generic product. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox

Guy, I appreciate your open mindedness about SqueakBox but really he does not invariably meet reason with reason. When my request to not depopulate a category without going through CfD is met by accusations that I'm enamored with the rape victims category, I find this unreasonable. When SqueakBox routinely accuses editors of secret pedophile-supporting agendas, oblivious to the fact that, hey, maybe just maybe some people wouldn't be too happy to be labeled pedophiles for closing an AfD as speedy keep, I call that unreasonable. That's not to say SqueakBox can't be a productive editor: he often is. But he can also be a tendentious editor. Of course, this is partly explained by his involvement in articles in which edit warring, POV pushing and sockpuppetry are routine. That does not make it any more acceptable. It is possible to be a member of WP:PAW without being a dick with everyone you find in your way, it is possible to fight POV pushing pedophiles without "boldly" removing a perfectly decent article about an absurdly objectionable subject, it is possible to fight for tougher applications of BLP without attempting to change one of the fundamental principles of the deletion policy without any sort of discussion . A few weeks ago at ANI, Jimbo commented on the recent controversy with Perverted Justice and said something like "what we need is more passionate anti-pedophile editors who are patient and smart to watch these articles". As I replied, what we need is editors that are patient, smart and as clinical as they can be. Passion makes Misplaced Pages suck. It's why administrators get constant flack, it's why there are revert wars, it's why there are insults flung all over the place and it's never necessary. Were SqueakBox not fighting on the obvious side of the good guys, he would have been forced to change his ways or leave the project a long time ago. Did you take a look at the diffs I provided on ANI? If not, please do: they are definitely the mark of an editor who behaves in a way that's likely to drive away editors like me who can take some abuse but do think that at some point it's best to leave the inmates run the asylum. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As I've said, in my experience he has, which is not to say that others have the same experience, or that he always has. Zealous application of WP:BLP is good, and overzealous application should be met with calmness. Passion is not what makes Misplaced Pages suck, obsession is what does that. Most of the serious problems I've encountered have been with people who are determined to boost their own interests, not with those pursuing WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a fine line between unbdridled passion and obsession and passion stops being ok when it leads you to bulldoze your way through other editors. I suppose it's your right not to take a look at the evidence I provided or to write off SqueakBox's extensive block log as the sign of a passionate editor, but even if your interactions with him have been positive, it's important to point out that many others have found him stubborn, prone to wild accusations and prone to edit warring. And by "other editors" I don't mean sockpuppets of Voice of Britain, I mean myself, User:DanielEng, User:Morven, User:Tony Sidaway, User:ElKevbo, User:Kylu, User:Georgewilliamherbert, to name but a few. I'm grateful for the work that he does but I don't think there's any need for the crap that comes with it. Pascal.Tesson 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of those are Wikifriends of mine, I've not heard from them about it. Regardless, a little patience should pay dividends. He's not some kid, he is a grownup. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can ask them then, or perhaps you can take a look at the diffs I provided or, say, User_talk:SqueakBox/history#NAMBLA_article, User_talk:SqueakBox/history#RfA_comments. I'm asking for 10 minutes of your time because I really am genuinely interested in having your thoughts on this. If you read these incidents and conclude that SqueakBox is just a little too enthusiastic about his work and that the problem is the lack of patience from myself, Georgewilliamherbert, Morven, well I guess I want to get advice on how to handle such things, because clearly I can't. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not obsessed with any subject on wikipedia. We cant have unsourced claims that any living person is a rape victim and I went through the people in that cat on a case by case basis, I certainly made no attempt to depopulate the category as some of the sourced cases where aboslutely left till the cfd passed. I afd'd the NAMBLA article after being asked to do so after being BOLD and redirecting it. ascal, your claim that Sidaway has a problem with me is offensicve and you dont have the evidence to back it up as I have had a good personal relationship with him and we tend to agree on many issues including re possible pedophilia images. This inj itself makes me think you are muck-raking if not actually harrassing me. I dont believe you should handle anything in relation to me, Pascal, as your own behaviour towards me has been far from perfect, eg bringing private emails to my talk page, and even after being warned by El C, being angry that I didnt assume you were an admin when you were not on the admin list nor contactable by meail etc. I have asked for mediation, you are ignoring that request and if this continues an Rfc is probably the only feasible option, and indeed if you want to see me sanctioned arbcom is the only realistic way you willa chieve that. But if you want to leave me alone to get on and edit that would be great. Your campaign against me is anything but, is unwarranted and unwelcome, SqueakBox 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And Guy is right that I am not some kid but I feel you, Pascal, are treating me like you are the teacher and I am some unruly schoolkid,m which is so far from the truth that yopu'll have to forgive me if I don't take that approach seriously (I am an adult with serious responsibilities). You have accused me of recklessness etc but I dont see you as being in a position to make that kind of judgement concerning me which is why I would like to see medaition between you and I as the only solution to this issue, other of course than just ignoring each other, live and let live (you seem fine with my edits to the controversial Roman Catholic sex abuse cases so you clearly dont have a problem with many if not most of my main space edits, SqueakBox 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Edith Elura Tilton Penrose

Hi, I was gonna start a stub for Edith Penrose and noticed you have deleted it 3 times already. She's pretty obscure but very influential. Would it be worth me writing up an entry and then putting it forward for consideration before creating the page or is it a lost cause? I mean is the problem just a lack of assertion of significance, or something else? Thanks Paki.tv —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Your edit on the Roger Elwood article was proper. It's generally held to be a dirty little secret of the industry, alas, with no hardcopy sources to cite. Such is Wikilife: if you can't source, don't put it in. But I've reverted your edit to the article about John M. Ford, since it met the requirements of WP:SELFPUB pretty nicely. --Orange Mike 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • But do we need dozens fo quotes from the horse's mouth? We are supposed to reflect what the reliable independent sources say about him, not simply repeat what he said about himself. I think we're straying too much into a journalistic profile from original sources and away from an encyclopaedic distillation of published material. We are not supposed to be the ones weighing the significance of primary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If the article was based on such posts, it would of course be absurd. The item which was sourced to that particular post was a trivial one, one well within the bounds of the WP:SELFPUB guidelines. --Orange Mike 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Trivia is... trivial. Does the article really need padding? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items

You created an AfD over an existing archived AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items. Ideally, you should have created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items (second nomination). I'm not sure where to go from here. I don't know how to split article histories (if that is even possible.) The best bet may be to simply close the AfD, and revert back to the old version, and relist again at the second nom title, and I guess loose those 11 comments. What do you think? Did you purposely start and AfD over the existing archive?-Andrew c  02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Clue help neded

Over on BLPN. I removed some inflammatory comments from the SWK talk page, which implicitly compared him with Hitler and other notorious historical figures. Now I'm being attacked as a censor. Some cluebat assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! FCYTravis 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello JzG, Meateater has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Meateater 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is 2010 in film protected?

I have put a reference to 2010 in film in articles for upcoming Narnia movies, but the page title is protected from creation. Why?Alan 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Any such assertions are at this point pure speculation. --Orange Mike 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions Add topic