| Revision as of 13:19, 3 August 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,078 edits →Assume good faith: or not← 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: | ||
| ] | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by Werdnabot. Any sections older than '''7''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived. | |||
| |- | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 Target-User Talk:JzG/Archive-{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| {| 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) | |||
| == Tallest structures in Paris == | |||
| Excellent essay. Please come back when you've cleared your head. . --] 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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? | |||
| 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) | |||
| Sorry again for all the trouble. ] 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| PS: for a clear picture of what I'm talking about, you can have a look at . Cheers. ] 13:21, 18 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) | |||
| :See the Talk page. ] 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Heh! Funny. But I paid cash, as I always do... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:41, 25 August 2007 (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) | |||
| :: Thanks for the input - left you an answer. ] 13:43, 18 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) | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| == Regarding deletions... == | |||
| I'm not sure if you've been following, but since your intervention the teapot turned tempest. The ] vs. ] example you cited earlier was dot-on for ], as both are both commonly and even officially called "London", but the only region comparable to ] in the Paris area is called the ], not ]. The "Paris metropolitan area" term (a term never used here, btw) describes an area even bigger. The simple fact of this is verifiable most everywhere. (looking up and down) You seem to have more than your share of things to worry about though - just consider this an update. Hopefully things won't get out of hand again. ] 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (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) <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) | |||
| == |
== Oops == | ||
| 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) | |||
| Why do you hate YTMND so much? I must know the reason for such an "irrational" opinion! ;D ] 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * G11 is your friend :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 25 August 2007 (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) | |||
| **Oh, thanks, just what I was looking for. ] 23:21, 25 August 2007 (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) | |||
| ::Although I agree that YTMND fads do not belong in mainspace articles, and I also agree that vandalism should be dealt with swiftly, there are many edits that do not look like vandalism. While I agree that they should be reverted, and while I will revert them if I come across them, I should ask you to join me and ] on edits that do not look like obvious attempts at vandalism. On several of the WikiProjects I'm involved with, I merge a lot of this cruft, but me and the other editors always assume good faith in the people who wrote the content we merged (we leave them friendly messages, not hateful ones). Just because something is out of hand doesn't mean we should ignore the foundations of our community. ''']''' 13:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: On edits that do not looks like vandalism, I do indeed try to assume good faith. Adding NEDM to the list of breed standards, linked to the YTMND fad, was vandalism, as were many of the other edits. You can only adda fad so many times to an article before it becomes obvious that the article is the playground du jour. Perhaps if it did not happen quite so often it would be easier to be sanguine about it... ] 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand, and I will try to help you as much as possible. And I agree completely with your thoughts on NEDM, and if I cared about NEDM (I personally don't like it), I'd have definitely been there to help revert it. Still, if an editor is making his or her first edit with regards to a fad, it's still a good idea to help them understand positively so as to not shoo them away. I've done so several times and have been thanked by these people, many of whom contribute in a positive way to articles now. That should be our ultimate goal here. ''']''' 16:16, 1 August 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) | |||
| ==Joy, joy, joy!!!== | |||
| 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) | |||
| Truly happy to see you back and supplying your usual straight talk. ;-) Take care, ] 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Experience indicates that removing the link is all the provocation YTMNDers need. ] 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Aye, rock on! ] 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, ditto! ''']]''' 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Finished your redux for you == | ||
| You probably lost interest, but just in case ] is finished and sorted. ] | ] 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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 (]]]) | |||
| :ready for archive.] 11:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Hi JzG, | |||
| ] will make the ] a lot easier to clean up. <b>]]]</b> 23:22, 21 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) | |||
| :ready for archive ] 11:49, 3 August 2006 (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) | |||
| == 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) | |||
| == A personal attack targeting you == | |||
| ==Request for move, Headlight → 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) | |||
| :Still thinking about this one. More Talk needeed I think. ] 11:49, 3 August 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) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| * 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 == | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 06:54, 25 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) | |||
| == Arbitration Request Filed == | |||
| * 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... == | |||
| I have asked for abrbitration involving ]. See . Please post any comments you desire to add. ] 08:57, 25 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''', 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 --> | |||
| == The YTMND user template == | |||
| *It's good to see you back at wikipedia. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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". : ) | |||
| == SirIsaacBrock == | |||
| I hope you're having a great day : ) - ] 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Reviewed. ] 11:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == fring == | |||
| ... 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) | |||
| hi there | |||
| == ACIM == | |||
| as per your comment in the afd | |||
| 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) | |||
| "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)" | |||
| :Moot, user blocked. ] 09:25, 3 August 2006 (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? | |||
| == OR Complaints == | |||
| now i am confused please help me. Thanx simon | |||
| 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? | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| * Could you at least tell me what is viewed as advertising in the article so I can remove that text. | |||
| == That cat == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| 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) | |||
| Welcome back. | |||
| :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">·]·</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">·]·</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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == My neck == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Aim higher, please -- you will hit nothing of value. Seriously, I read you loud and clear.--] 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Again, thank you, and welcome back. --] | ] 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Well== | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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, ] 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. <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== | |||
| Dear JzG: | |||
| 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== | |||
| 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. | |||
| ...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 == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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 wikipedia 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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Hiya == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Good to see you again! ] 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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." | |||
| : Indeed! ] 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Another strange article == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Thank you, | |||
| ] 16:45, 28 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == resolved == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :::: 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, | |||
| 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, ]. | |||
| ::::: 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) | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Admin== | |||
| 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." | |||
| 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== | |||
| 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." | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| : Yup, thanks. Needs to be sorted once and for all, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:34, 5 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." | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Should Misplaced Pages use these false statements by C56C to determine reliable sources? | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Good one, ] 18:11, 5 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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--> | |||
| Dear JzG: | |||
| 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) | |||
| On July 28 you inserted a heading "Recent edits" at the Brett Kavanaugh discussion page. You wrote: "I have removed this form the article and asked Thomist to achieve consensus here befopre reinserting this content." | |||
| == proms == | |||
| I respected your advice and have been working toward that goal, with patience. User C56C who first contacted you at the top of this discussion on your page is participating in the discussion, yet C56C continues to edit the article. It seems unfair that I must wait to reach a concensus before making changes to the article while C56C continues to make changes independent of others. | |||
| 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) | |||
| You seem to be fair-minded. Could you put things back as they were on July 31, and encourage C56C to wait until we reach a solution before editing the article. | |||
| Thank you. ] 01:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Non-help on help page== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please re-visit the discussion. ] 09:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Don, thanks. ] 10:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Your comments regarding my filing for arbitration == | |||
| * Thanks for that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| Welcome back, Guy!!! -- ] 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Best Products == | |||
| :Yes, I'm slow on the uptake. -- ] 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Gastrich's latest petition == | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==Removal of warning on Geogre's page== | |||
| * 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| {| 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 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 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Why did you delete the PDMA article? ] 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Tell me I'm not crazy == | |||
| * 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 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hi JzG, | |||
| :I deleted the repost and closed it. Let me know if you see it pop up again. ] 09:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Request for opinion: ] == | |||
| : 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :: 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 wikipedia 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) | |||
| ==Gastrich?=== | |||
| ::::::: 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 wikipedia who will agree with me. | |||
| {{vandal|Bufordhollis}} created ]. | |||
| ::::::: Thanks for asking for clarification from ArbCom. It is none of business anyways. Peace :) --] 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I deleted the repost, but I don't think this is actually Gastrich. ] 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Ye,s it is ArbCom's business, and they can make the call. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==John Corvino== | |||
| Is it your contention that "generic associate professor"s speak to over 100 university campuses ? ] 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not uncommon. Lecture tours and all. ] 22:55, 29 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) | |||
| ==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) | |||
| :responding there. ] 11:48, 3 August 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| : I'm happy to take your word on that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Chrome (XM)== | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) == | |||
| 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 wikipedia 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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == You deleted an article against consensus == | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==Hampl, Punto, Leutgeb ... == | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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--> | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::I'm going to write a ] eventually, you know. ] ] 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was a third opinion helping on the content. You however ignored it and made it redirects, thus deleting the history and hiding that you had violated the same rules about biographies of living people you had claimed to have blocked me for. Your blocks of me while in a content dispute were abuse of adminship. Restore ] and ] immediately. ] 11:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Like I said, I merged two articles with substantially identical content to a single article which more accurately reflected the nature of that content. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with adminship, it is a perfectly normal editorial action which can be performed by any registered user. The third opinion text was about the book it remains, unaltered, in the merged article. ] 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You know very well that blocking other editors to gain an advantage in a content dispute is abuse of admin power. And you know very well that your argumentation had failed to convince and you should not make articles redirects if there are others who disagree. ] 11:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Motorized Bicycles== | |||
| ==DRV== | |||
| Thanks for |
Thanks for your help pruning the external links on the ] page! Your help is very... helpful! ] 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :De nada. ] 11:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Since you were wondering...== | |||
| ...this is typical behaviour of this user when interacting with others, as summarized ]. ] 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. ] 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. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Why the reverts and re-reverts? == | |||
| 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 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| ==Merge== | |||
| You may be interested in ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == OTRS Question == | |||
| 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>]] <em style="font-size:10px;">15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| * 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) | |||
| ** 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>]] <em style="font-size:10px;">16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| ::* 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) | |||
| == Great work, keep it up == | |||
| {| 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 == | |||
| ==BLP Clarification== | |||
| On your Deletion Review vote on Jim Shapiro, you mentioned that you thought WP:BLP be clarified. I'm curious as to what you mean by that. I agree with your vote on this deleted article. How could the BLP be better clarified? Thanks.] 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The AfD was blanked, I believe. I have started a discussion on whether it is necessary to explicitly include project space in ], specifically the nuke-on-soght policy for unsourced negative comments, since at present it could be read as excluded. ] 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks very much for your support in my recently successful RfA. I appreciated your comment! | |||
| == WikiWoo yet again == | |||
| 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) | |||
| WikiWoo has now recreated the deleted ], this time named ]. <font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Of course. He's gaming the system and can be ignored. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hammertime. ] 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*That's what I figured. -- ] ] ] 06:53, 15 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 ] for you. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{award2|image=Barnstar3.png|size=100px|topic=The Barnstar of Diligence|text=In recognition of your work in helping to keep Misplaced Pages free of ], ] and ], I award you this Barnstar of Diligence. <font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 16:18, 31 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) | |||
| ==The Scourge of Solihull== | |||
| ==] opened== | |||
| I realise you may be busy, but could you have a look at the article at ]? - I've stuck a db-hoax on it, but given the amount of effort that has gone into it I doubt it will go without a fight, and I am unusually busy for the next few weeks. | |||
| 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> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer. ] 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Nuked per ] and the snowball clause (obvious hoax, the picture was Kenneth Williams) ] 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "Usual crap" == | |||
| ::Many thanks for your rapid mopping! ] 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Do you really think "usual crap" is a civil way to conduct a discussion? ] 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Acadame North== | |||
| * 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) | |||
| I respect your opinion but I do not agree, I am not doing this in 'Vanity' as you stated I am writing these articles for Socialism! You would not be here today if the glorious red army did not march in to Berlin in WW2, Do not disgrace ] Tito his Partisans Freed us! Acadame North honors that! You are acting like a Fascist! Do you no why Capitalism has failed? The League of Communists in Yugoslavia maintained a Orthodox religious community, loyal to god and their nation! Shame on you <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:26, July 31, 2006.</small> | |||
| :Responded somewhere, can't remember where. ] 11:47, 3 August 2006 (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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thank you very much for tackling the user who seems to me to have been trying to turn this place into Spankiwankipedia. It was about time someone did. I wish you luck of it as I am not sure he listens, but if it works, then great. ] 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :(note to self: <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span>) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| == Barnstar == | |||
| == NYLT == | |||
| Many thanks. Cheers -- ] <small>]</small> 05:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :De nada :-) ] 11:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Vandalizm and Lies by You == | |||
| * 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) | |||
| I am about to start an arbitration proceeding against you because of your vandalism and lies. | |||
| == Please enlight me == | |||
| ] has lied about me. He wrote: "] recently poosted on Usenet that he has re-created every chess player article of his which has been deleted." There is not much here to establish the importance of the subject. ] 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ] | |||
| 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... | |||
| This is an outrageous lie. I have never made and such statement on usenet or anywhere else. | |||
| 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Administrators who lie should be blocked and removed from Misplaced Pages. I demand that this be done. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Because of these lies by Louis Blair and ] about five good articles have been deleted from Misplaced Pages and even "salted the earth". Another 30 or more articles have been vandalized by ]. For Example, ] is Vice-President of the ], an organization of 159 member nations and thus is clearly a notable person within the standards of Misplaced Pages. ] is President of the Turkish Chess Federation, an organization of 125,000 members and is the subject of an article in the current issue of ChessBase Magazine and thus is clearly a notable person. Both artocles were deleted by ] | |||
| The vandalism by ] of these obviously notable persons plus his lie about me is more than suffieient ground to get ] kicked out of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ==Sigrid Lidströmer== | |||
| I have just been elected to the Executive Board of the ] and you can expect to receive a strongly worded letter soon if this miscxonduct is not corrected. ] 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. You speedied ], saying that the article did not assert significance. | |||
| :Pick better examples. Here's your admission on Usenet to the action you deny above: , and from the deletion log for Geoffrey Borg | |||
| :* 10:48, July 27, 2006 ] (] • ]) deleted "Geoffrey Borg" (]) | |||
| :* 04:14, March 19, 2006 ] (] • ]) deleted "Geoffrey Borg" (We are Geoffrey of Borg. You will be deleted.) | |||
| :I guess the "vandalism" of which you speak is the removal of links to your website, which you added. ] says do not add links to websites you own. ] 09:15, 1 August 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) | |||
| == "Traditional counties" of Scotland == | |||
| :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) | |||
| The County Watch and ABC are at it yet again: trying to claim that Scotland has "traditional counties". We knocked that myth on the head last year, when we merged the ] article with the ] article. Well now they are trying to say that the situation in Scotland and England is equivalent, see ]. It is not. I am sick to the back teeth of this. Can you please keep an eye on the situation? --] 09:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :Responding there. ] 11:46, 3 August 2006 (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 would not call putting the word 'glorious' in an article vandalism don’t worry I am writing user names down so in the event I do get blocked I can send a nice long email. Please don’t give me those links I really don’t care about those policies.{{Unsigned|Acadamenorth}} | |||
| :You might not, others do. I know you don't care about policy, that is why you are a problem. ] 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Opinions of other admins == | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| :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> ♦ ]</sup>''' 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| JzG, may I suggest you make sure a couple other admins are keeping an eye on this thing, so that your actions (if you end up blocking him further) are not taken as those of a ''real'' "rouge admininstrator." :) <font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Good thought. Posted to ]. ] 11:46, 3 August 2006 (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.--] 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hey dude, regarding ] I have added some new stuff to the article and put a new source in (he was featured in a big computer magazine as well as Wired). I reckon the kid passes WP:MUSIC now. Wondering if you might reconsider your vote. ] 02:26, 2 August 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) | |||
| :Visited. ] 11:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Cycling icon== | |||
| I hope you'll forgive the impersonal nature of this note; inasmuch as I've essentially the same message for four editors, I'm copying it to the talk pages of ], ], ], and ]. In any event, a discussion was recently undertaken at ] as to the image used in ] (which discussion, I should say, seemed to be altogether a good one); acting boldly, and consistent with my idiosyncratic and obsession-driven attempt properly to refactor or format the sundry Portal talk pages, I moved the discussion to ], where such discussion is more likely to invite participation from others interested in the topic). I mean not at all to be indecorous, and so if one of you should revert, I'd certainly understand, especially inasmuch as ], another page at which such discussion might belong, seems generally moribund. ] 04:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Responded there. ] 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, a reliable source isn't as necessary when the facts are easily ]. --] 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] image== | |||
| * 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) | |||
| Hi JzG | |||
| * 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) | |||
| :I never said you yourself called it a reliable source. Popular != reliable. ] 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry you have been dragged into this stupidity. I will fill you in on the background. | |||
| == Vopt AfD == | |||
| The User “JK the unwise” is a long standing member of the Community Party of Great Britain. This group is characterised by its extreme sectarianism towards other groups on the left. JK has an obsession with Lindsey German. In July 2005 he travelled up to the Make Poverty History Rally in Scotland with a camera and proceeded to take as many pictures of Lindsey German and her partner John Rees as he could possibly fit on his memory card. People thought he was an undercover cop until I explained he was from the CPGB. Please have a look at the history page on the John Rees article to see the image he has been trying to upload for the last year and you will get some idea of JK’s agenda. | |||
| Kindly review the responses posted to the ] article ] 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Rees_%28UK_politician%29&diff=66274898&oldid=66274544 | |||
| * 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 do not bother to talk to JK because he is not serious and will simply try and pretend he is being reasonable. All he cares about is posting unflattering images of people whose politics he hates with a passion. It is sad but such is the nature of the CPGB. | |||
| * 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) | |||
| Don’t waste your time trying to reason with him. He has only one agenda.{{unsigned|Fashion1}} | |||
| :Monitoring the article. ] 21:05, 2 August 2006 (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 ], 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) | |||
| It appears that we were simultaneously editing the Pensacola Christian College article after ] raised objections to information in the ] section. After reviewing both the edits where the info was originally inserted, as well as the resulting ], I opted to move most of the material in question to the talk page pending ]. I tried to keep most of the info you added on Christian college accreditation and ]. Please accept my apologies if I inadvertently stepped on your toes (or edits). --] (]) 13:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Responded at article Talk ] 21:05, 2 August 2006 (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 ] 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) | |||
| == Re: Deletion of ] == | |||
| :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) | |||
| How come you nominated this page for deletion? The author of the site hasn't even been given time to write his case of why it shouldn't be deleted. Also I have also found more sites on Misplaced Pages that is of the same type that has been there for ages without getting deleted (like ]) so what makes this article any different? Please respond as I would greatly like to hear your thoughts on this matter. I run the official fan club of that actress btw.. She may not be up to Masuimi Max's status yet but she has a fan base and we don't understand why the article on her has to be deleted. | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| :I nominated for deletion via AfD because ] requested deletion, which you contested but without giving any reason. To unclutter ] I moved it to AfD, as I usually do. Your being aparently a ] account also gives an impression that this subject is being promoted. The picture has a copyright issue. ] 16:05, 2 August 2006 (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 haven't had time to write any reason as there is a time difference and I have been at work. What do you mean by ] account? I am only just beginning to edit and post at Misplaced Pages and have edited 2 articles so far (one being the one on Celeste the other on ] altho I am having problems with the picture I uploaded from the fanclub page.) As for the picture copyright issue I have permission from the copyrightholder and have added this to the tekst under the picture as of now. If it makes it better I can hand over the article to another member of Celeste's fan club so he can edit it if my status is in question. | |||
| ::AfD takes five days, you have plenty of time to fix the article before it finishes. See ] for the kinds of evidence people are looking for. The meaning of single purpoise account is in the linked document - calling yourself velvetgeisha looks a bit sus, under the circumstances. Not that it's necessarily a problem, as long as this is not a role account, which is verboten. Don't worry, you'll get used to our Wiki-ways soon enough :-) I'll post some helpful links on your Talk page. ] 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The account acctually was Celestes but was given over to her fanclub as she never used it. I should have made my own but I never thaught about it. THink I should make one for myself to avoid further problems in the future maybe :) And all tips are most welcome :) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Regarding ] == | |||
| :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) | |||
| ==Edith Elura Tilton Penrose== | |||
| Something is screwed up with ]. It appears that your nom was appended to an earlier closed AfD, and that after your nom it was speedily redirected and deletion out of order. I've slapped an {{tl|at}}/{{tl|ab}} pair on it, but you may wish to review/revert. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ]</span> 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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--> | |||
| :Ah, thanks. That happens sometimes - I use Jnothman's AfD helper and if there is no AfD notice on Talk to give a clue, previously deleted articles sometimes get appended like that> I usually fix it but I guess that must have been about the time the hub mail server went offline :-) ] 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * If a sourced article establishing notability can be written, just go ahead. The last version was, in its entirety: "'''Edith Elura Tilton Penrose''' (], ] in ] – October, 1996 in ], ]) was an economist." <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Blogs as sources == | |||
| == In regards to your comment about ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| In regards to the following comment you made on AMIB's talk page: | |||
| * 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) | |||
| ** 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) | |||
| ::* 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 == | |||
| :Good idea but doomed to fail. The usual suspects are already sabotaging it while simultaneously asserting that they will never accept it. ] 21:01, 2 August 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?-] </sup>]] 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Wow. Talk about bad faith. And to think I just joined Misplaced Pages a few months ago, and already people like myself and ] who signed up at ] in the last few months are being lumped into "the usual suspects". I understand you guys may have been here since the dawn of time (in terms of Misplaced Pages), but give everyone a fair chance, will you? --] 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Go and read the previous discussions. I recall two excellent compromise proposals and a number of other good ideas all of which were rejected out of hand because they were not "keep all schools". Those of us who were looking for ways to cover schools without violating ] and ] and without being a mere directory were repeatedly called deletionists, although no deletion was ever proposed, only merging or transwiki. The most common mantra as I recall was "all schools are inherently notable", which is ]. I'm happy to take part in the debate, but I have no confidence in a good result because for some people this is a religious issue: no school article may be anything other than a separate article. Even when it's been shown that the article was a hoax, some schools inclusionists have voted keep at AfD simply because the article had the S word in the title. In no other area do we have defence of articles which are simply a restatement of the article title, or a copy and paste from a directory. it is an anomaly, but some people are determined to keep it so. See ] for a school which I consider borderline notable. ] 07:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| == I have reverted your userpage == | |||
| == Clue help neded == | |||
| ] added a userbox to your page . I can only assume this was without your authorization and I have reverted it. If you would like me to refrain from reverting vandalism to your userpage in the future, just say the word. <span style="font-family:serif;">—]⁂]</span> 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Heh! Amusing. Yes, it was without my consent but full marks to him for at least keeping the silliness out of mainspace :-) ] 11:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Smile! == | ||
| <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) | |||
| I try my best :) — ] <sup>(])</sup> <sub><span style="color:#6600FF">12:29, 03 August '06</span></sub> | |||
| == Why is 2010 in film protected? == | |||
| ==Assume good faith== | |||
| Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See ] for the guidelines on this.<!-- Template:agf1 --> | |||
| ] 12:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::Please ''demonstrate'' good faith when dealing with ]. ] 12:41, 3 August 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) | |||
| :::Calling others names in no way helps to resolve conflicts. Good faith is to be assumed in general. I see your edits lacking neutrality as much as you see the same with mine. ] 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Very droll. The way to resolve a conflict where you are on one side and everybody else is on the other is probably for you to at least acknowledge the possibility that you might be wrong, something you have yet to do. ] 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:01, 12 February 2023
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)
- This really is just a guy that should get back to work or he won't be able to afford his Volvo payments. 61.235.241.114 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Heh! Funny. But I paid cash, as I always do... Guy (Help!) 10:41, 25 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)
- See the message on your talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
- G11 is your friend :-) Guy (Help!) 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks, just what I was looking for. KP Botany 23:21, 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)
- 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. Buzybeez 21:16, 29 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)
- Thanks, I think my "frustrated vanity spammer meter" is registering 100% on that one. Guy (Help!) 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. 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)
- Looks like this troll is indef blocked by someone else. Jesse Viviano 16:55, 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)
- But in the absence of a more recent citation, it will do. Guy (Help!) 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. --David Shankbone 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't know me but...
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- It's good to see you back at wikipedia. Sheffield Steelstalkers 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
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 wikipedia 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)
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)
- TW did not post the nom, and I had to go and do that shit they pay me for. Done now. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 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)
- Thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 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)
- Same reason as last time: it was advertorial for an organisation with no obvious claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 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 wikipedia 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 wikipedia 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)
- It's a directory entry for a minor facet of a company that already has an article. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 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)
- Misplaced Pages is not a directory, not an advertisement hoarding, and not the place to promote a business. Also, we have a conflict of interest guideline. Your own company and it's glitterati are a bad idea for an article. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 12 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)
- Lack of Clue - I went to revert titface's edits and clicked your contribs by mistake. Half asleep. Guy (Help!) 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! :) - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Let's not speculate further, shall we? Guy (Help!) 23:30, 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)
- I commented in the otrs irc channel that someone else should reply, since I was the one who nuked it. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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. ^demon 16:48, 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)
- Of course. He's gaming the system and can be ignored. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I figured. -- Flyguy649 contribs 06:53, 15 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)
- Yes we do, WP:CSD#G10. Guy (Help!) 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. 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)
- I'd love to, but the complainant was insufficiently specific. I've asked him to comment on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 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- {{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)
- See WP:CSD#A7. Any chance you're going to stop arguing about your articles on your family? Guy (Help!) 18:27, 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)
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)
- You might want to read WP:ATT, WP:RS and the like. Nothing wrong with reposting with reliable sources, but reposting with the same crap sources is not on. Guy (Help!) 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. 208.127.155.20 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you may be confusing me with other people. I have never called engadget a reliable source. Please cite reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 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)
- Kindly add the assertions of notability to the article. Guy (Help!) 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 --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)
- 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)
- 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)
- If a sourced article establishing notability can be written, just go ahead. The last version was, in its entirety: "Edith Elura Tilton Penrose (November 15, 1914 in Los Angeles, California – October, 1996 in Waterbeach, England) was an economist." Guy (Help!) 10:15, 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)
- 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. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is not an ordinary case. John M. "Mike" Ford was a frequent contributor to Making Light, one of the most cherished and well-known people there. 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. --Orange Mike 16:54, 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)
- Twinkle might have done so, which would explain why I could not find the original... Guy (Help!) 10:00, 22 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!
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)