Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:JzG Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:45, 22 November 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →Mega Society "Calling a halt": reply← 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 ]. Any sections older than '''7''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps 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 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User Talk:JzG/Archive-{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}-{{CURRENTYEAR}}--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
{{Administrator}}
__NOTOC__


==JzG essay==
{| align="right" width="260px" class="toc" |-
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Me_and_Wikipedia
|-
|----
!align="center"|]<br/>]
----
|-
|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*], August 2006
*], September 2006
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
----


Don't let the trolls push you out of here. We need you.--] 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
]<br>
]
|}
'''Guy Chapman? He's ]'''
----
Thank you to everybody for messages of support, and to JoshuaZ for stepping up to the plate. I have written about what happened at ].
----
<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.


:Thank you, Guy, for that excellent essay.<br>Don't let the bastards grind you down. Cheers, ] 17:00, 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 ]'''.


Excellent essay. Please come back when you've cleared your head. . --] 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Note to self: ''']''', Esperanza admin coaching.
----
* ]
* <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • • )</span>


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)


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)




* 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)
:* 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)
== United States military nuclear incident terminology ==


:::JzG, I totally *get* where you are coming from, but, selfishly, I will MISS YOU around... --] 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the deletion review of ], what do you mean by "In what way is this not a copy of a primary source"? I thought the deletion was regarding A5 (transwiki articles--specifically Wiktionary, in this case) -- not copyright problems. What primary source are you referring to? Am I missing something? -- ] (])


== 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) <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)
==Patrick Buri ==
:{{article|Patrick Buri}}
whats the problem with the patrick buri page ?
--] 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
: The creator reacts hysterically to anything other than its preferred text; it won't even allow the name to be spelled out on Talk pages discussing its deletion. <b>]</b> 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
::... to the extent that I have just had to revert their change to the section title and link above. <b>]</b> 09:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:So if I understand correctly, an anonymous user purporting to be George Brown opposed the deletion of a vanity page for Patrick Buri, and recreated the page enough times that JzG had to protect the Patrick Buri page against recreation.. The anonymous editor (presumably but not certainly George Brown) is now deleting any occurence of the name "Patrick Buri" from talk pages, probably in order to prevent Buri's wikipedia history from showing up on google searches. ] 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:: I don't recall who the anon claimed to be, and there are several sockpuppets involved (e.g. {{vandal|Victorysurge}}). I had an exchange with the user under one or toher of his names and undertook to remove all the previous history of warnings etc. by deleting his previous user and talk pages, and the protected-deleted which appears in Google, provided he drop the idea of an article on Buri, which was deleted by consensus and supported at review, but the stupid sod promtly re-created it with a laudatory edit summary so I salted it again. And now he comes round every now and then to obfuscate the name because it spoils his Google presence (e.g. ). I had some sympathy to start with but this is clearly a monomaniac and having abused my good nature I am in ] mode over this one. <b>]</b> 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


== Oops ==
::: Hi Guy, I have been looking at the details here, seems you are really in a BOFH mode, no need to insult anyone though !!!!!! are you suggesting this person is Patrick Buri, I can help here, why not, I found this persons web site and I send an email to find out and fix the situation once for all, I am waiting for a reply?--] 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


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)
:::: I believe that the multiple accounts are owned by a child or associate of Buri. Whent he article was deleted, salted and endorsed at review, the user came to me and asked really nicely if he could be allowed to continue editing, and if the deleted-protected status could be removed, on the understanding that he would not immediately go and re-create the article, because the deleted-protected page appears near the top of the Google results for this subject (not too many hits in total, plus Misplaced Pages is highly ranked by Google). I did this, and of course he went straight in and re-created the article. I am all for giving people a fair chance, but when they take the piss and abuse my good nature I get annoyed, and this time round the article is staying salted. If you are desperately concerned to maintain the integrity of your Google results, do not add your pet subject to a site wihc says right there in the edit box that content may be edited mercilessly. And when this is pointed out to you, ''don't bloody do it again''. Cluelessness and enthusiasm are forgivable, rank stupidity is not. <b>]</b> 11:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
* G11 is your friend :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
::::: Seems that you are really pissed off with this one! I send an email to Buri's web site www.bankset.com general contact email address and asked for clarifiction I am still waiting for the info... Guy, just relax in the mean time, its not really very bad news, issues like that are part of wikipedia. Its a small problem, probably one person is making an obsession with this article.!!! I made some research and Buri seems to be known in Central Europe/Switzerland as a financial advisor guru, but seems that he has a Swiss background with education in the USA! whatever I'll get back to you when they send me more info --] 12:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
**Oh, thanks, just what I was looking for. ] 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


==Joy, joy, joy!!!==
:::::: Not pissed off so much as I have lost patience. I will honour most good-faith requests, but if the requestor then abuses that goodwill they should not be surprised if a second request meets a more robust and less accepting response. <b>]</b> 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Truly happy to see you back and supplying your usual straight talk. ;-) Take care, ] 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
:Aye, rock on! ] 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, ditto! ''']]''' 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


== Finished your redux for you ==
I received an email from Mrs Himeland working as a VP at Bankset:


You probably lost interest, but just in case ] is finished and sorted. ] | ] 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
" Thank you for your email and interest in Bankset Corporation and its CEO Mr Patrick Buri. We are not aware of the present discussions at wikipedia concerning Mr Buri. Except that we received an email, with reference to wikipedia, this several months ago, from an individual who was interested in Mr Buri's personal life and career, but we didn’t reply. We presently don’t have an official communications PR strategy, this could change next year though when our holding company becomes public and listed on the London Stock Exchange.
We would appreciate if you can make sure that all content and discussions on wikipedia relating to Mr Buri are accurate and respectful. Please contact me directly if you need additional verification or details about Mr Buri's career, I will see what I can do. I confirm again that we are not involved in the discussions or articles and would appreciate if you can send me a copy and remove all irrelevant and inaccurate text relating to Mr Buri."


== ] ==
I personally suggest that Guy removes and cleans all text and discussions relating to Buri. I will perform additional research about Buri and this particular situation, eventually propose an article and we can finally discuss the issue on Patrick Buri’s talk page and Guy can then decide if he wants to remove the protection for the Patrick Buri page or not. Hope this helps….. --] 16:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi JzG,
: Whatever. We cleaned out all the discussion once before, but Amoona chose to use this gesture of good faith as an excuse to recreate the article. It's hard to be kind and respectful when one side is not playing the game. <b>]</b> 15:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you are back! While I realize that this may not be the best time for this, and the personal pain that this page has caused you, there is an ] running amok on ] making personal attacks and generally making a mess of the article. I tried the ArbCom enforcement board, but an admin was unwilling to block as the ] has made a few minor edits (mostly unnecessary capitalization or wikilinks) in other articles. As you are very familiar with the editing history of the page, I would be very interested to have your opinion on it, however, I would understand if you do not wish to visit this page again. Thanks, ] 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks! ] 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks again, JzG. I noticed that you placed a full-protection template on the page, however the page is only semi-protected. I would endorse full protection to put an end to this counter-productive edit-warring. Thanks, ] 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Clue deficiency. Fixed now. Frankly I think the project would be better off if that article were a lot shorter. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


*Hi JzG, whenever you get a chance, can you please see #14 (Protection) and #16 (For JzG) and #12 (edit request) on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine Thanks in advance for your feedback. ] 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I received a few messages and emails and we are presently working on an article that should be satisfactory. --] 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


== A personal attack targeting you ==
== User:Xosa ==


<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)
Just out of curiosity, whatever happened to ]? --] 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
: Definite sock of ]. <b>]</b> 22:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC) * 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)
::In other words, Xosa disagreed with ] or ], the two Zionists who control content at Misplaced Pages. Guy's help is implicit because he's too worried about his position to note that the emperor has no clothes. If you don't believe me, look at ] and try to find anything that he did wrong. Xosa's only crime was not subjugating himself to Zionism, as Guy apparently has. --] 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::Looks like this troll is indef blocked by someone else. ] 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::: No, several people with detailed knowledge of your editing pattern back this diagnosis. You are not welcome here, please go and find another project to disrupt. <b>]</b> 11:09, 24 October 2006 (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)


== John Doolittle == == Sectarian Movement ==
{{article|John Doolittle}}
An annon has reverted the removal of the criticism section. I've taken the liberty (perhaps wrongly) to revert the annon's action. Though you would want to know, ---] (]|]) 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:Can you do me a favor? User:Devilmaycares has been adding some highly slanted material to John Doolittle... (oddly the exact stuff a banned user was adding previously). Maybe if two people admonish him he'll stop. ---] (]|]) 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::I guess his response is a fairly clear indicator of his attitude. ---] (]|]) 15:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Dont agree with your claim that protestant is the same as sectarian. Two completely different things.] 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
==Lostpedia==
* But in the absence of a more recent citation, it will do. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I remember talking to you the last time I tried to get Lostpedia an article. I remember you telling me to go through the right channels and stuff, and the reason I'm attempting to try and get the article back now is cause I felt we had some notability from the Lost Experience that would satisfy Misplaced Pages rules. Can I possibly ask you to read the comment I've made at ], as well as possibly review the deleted content using your Admin powers? Then, would it be possible to chat to you about your opinions and stuff? I don't want a great war going on, I'm just looking to maturely discuss points, as well as possibly hear about what it WILL take to justify an article (as from accounts right now it seems like "a miracle" lol). Thank you very much for all the help you've given me in the past, its very much appreciated. Cheers, --] 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
==The THF thing==
: You'll have a hard time here, it was deleted and the deletion reviewed. Right now we have a link to it on Lost, which is fine by most people. Misplaced Pages is not a weeb directory, after all. <b>]</b> 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
::OK, but I'm still on the "notability" page. Just as long as we keep the conflict mature eh. I don't want counterproductive name calling anymore than you do :-) --] 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::: Notability is subjective. I want to see evidence that Lostpedia has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatment in reliable secondary sources. What we have seen thus far is either unreliable or trivial. <b>]</b> 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


== You don't know me but... ==
==]==
Whoa!Looks like my asking questions about it led to its userifying. My apologies. <tt>:P</tt> &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
: I have no problem with that. I am coming to the view that we should prune project space of all cruft and just have very short policies, slightly longer guidelines, and as little else as possible.


<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 -->
::What do you think of this?
*It's good to see you back at wikipedia. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
::'''4.''' What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Misplaced Pages? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Misplaced Pages administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies? &mdash; ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


== Welcome back ==
::: I don't know where bullet point 4 comes from (RFA?) but in order of importance:
Welcome back! I hope that your WikiBreak was enjoyable/restful/(insert other adjective as appropriate : )
:::# Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, a collection of that which is known from reputable sources, presented in neutral terms.
:::# Misplaced Pages policies support the above.
:::# Misplaced Pages guidelines and processes can give useful guidance in how policy is and should be applied.
:::# You cannot either legislate or document Clue.
::: For my money a good admin should be able to demonstrate the ability to apply items 1 and 2 in the face of blind adherence to 3. Ideally this should be achieved through the process of debate, showing those who advocate the slavish following of process precisely why, in that specific case, the encyclopaedia can be improved by ignoring it. I pretty much ignore the questions on RFA anyway, preferring to look at how the editor actually works in practice. With time I could formulate the ideal set of answers to the questions and copy-paste them into the template, thus making them redundant :-) Who's going to answer "I want to be an admin so I can delete all articles on that non-fiction crapo and block everybody who is not a YTMNDer"? They really are a bit naive. <b>]</b> 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


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". : )
== User we discussed earlier. ==


FYI, ]. ] 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) I hope you're having a great day : ) - ] 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


==]==
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.


== fring ==
Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, {{Userlinks|Ackoz}} is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at ], with the reason given.


hi there
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, ] 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


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 ] 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?
==Menage article==
Please see my recent comments at ]. I'd appreciate it if you would offer your opinion in the talk page, and leave the image alone so that others can comment too. We are trying to find a consensus, and basically, you are stepping on toes by changing the image when that is not wanted by the consensus. When we we submitted the RfC, we were asking for opinions on the matter, not asking for people to come change things according to their opinion. I appreciate that you have good intentions, and look forward to your opinion.
] 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
: You have it the wrong way round. The responsiobility for justifying inclusion is yours, you nead to leave it out for the duration. <b>]</b> 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


now i am confused please help me. Thanx simon
Guy, I've tried to explain and be reasonable. I've explained that the image was already in the article, and that you removing it is the problem. I've tried explaining how there is a regional difference in the usage of Menage, and that where I am from (and in most english speaking countries) the term is used primarily as a sexual euphemism. Trying to change the minds of all non-french speaking people is a waste of time. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, just to respect the majority of us who have a different opinion.
] 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)
When you remove the image from the article, it interferes with us trying to gain consensus. What I am trying to say diplomatically, is that you are being disuptive, rather than working with me, or others editing the page. Of course, you can behave as you wish, I am trying to indicate how that affects others. Reading the comments, it would seem that current consensus is '''for'' continuing inclusion of the image, and '''for'' having other images that reflect other aspects of the topic.


* Could you at least tell me what is viewed as advertising in the article so I can remove that text.
I focus primarily on sexology and sexuality articles, and watch hundreds of articles in that area of Misplaced Pages. Other than a change I recall you made in the "female ejaculation" article, I don't remember seeing you participate in this area much. AT any rate, images in sexology and sexuality articles are often controversial, which is why we are discussing issues like this at ]. It is a work in progress, and has more to be done, but perhaps discusses issue relavent to this article.
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==
Again, I am asking you to stop removing the image and participate in the process.
Welcome back.
Regards, ] 12:20, 19 October 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.
: You are ignoring two facts: first, you must justify inclusion, not I removal. That has been pointed out many times. Second, I ''am'' participating in the process. I'm just disagreeing with you. Apparently disagreeing with you is the same thing as not participating; this is known as ]. <b>]</b> 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


As I said at WP:AN/I, NeutralHomer doesn't seem able to track subtlety very well, so I don't know whether it will do any good or whether he will fall back on the vaguely conspiratorial language he resorts to when I'm not summarily banned from Misplaced Pages on his say-so. I know which way to bet, though.
==YouTube memes article==
{{article|Notable YouTube memes}}
Are you suggesting that we actually remove (or merge and redirect) ''all'' the YouTube crap into this one article and then nuke anything which is not covered in multiple non-trivial reliable sources? If that is actually what you are saying then I will do what I can to help with the process, starting with seeing how much we can get on ] itself. The approach taken on ] where we leave the assessment of significance to the YTMND community and link to their own wiki for anyone who is interested is, I think, a good model, since it removes the inevitable tension between fans and policy. Removing multiple articles on passing fads, of whatever source, is and always will be a great idea, and I apologise if I have misunderstood your intent here. <b>]</b> 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:Hi Guy - my answer to your question is yes - this is exactly what I am proposing. I think it's better to link so-called YouTube celebrities to a single article linked to (or even part of) the main ] article. These people have done nothing to make them notable except posted videos on YouTube, and it just invites trivial facts that don't mean anything. I can't see how most of the articles could ever be expanded to a good or featured quality either (lonelygirl15 might be an exception if it turns out to be a long-running series or a movie or something...). I didn't know what YTMND was until you told me, so perhaps it was me that didn't understand. My aim is to remove the useless articles rather than create more and it was never my intention to have both. Let me know what I can do. (] 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC))
:: I think the best way to proceed is to merge and redirect any existing YouTube cruft into the main article at ], until that section gets too bog - at which point it can either be pruned or forked. Images should not be necessary. Half a dozen items is probably about right. <b>]</b> 11:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::: Do you want to stop the debate on the ] then so I can have a go at doing that before it gets deleted and I'm unable to access the information? ] 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Again, thank you, and welcome back. --] | ] 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Any response to that? I don't know how to proceed if you agree with me that this is worth keeping... ] 04:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello - any response? (] 03:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

==Opinion requested==

Hi! As an admin who has not been previously involved, and as far as I know holds no strong opinion on the matter, could you take a look at at AN/I? The user has been asked to stop by several administrators (Morven, Renata, Kusma and Freakofnurture) before, but the problem is still ongoing and a fresh view from an administrator would be appreciated. Many thanks, ] 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

==Response==
* I have '''not pressed on''' or done anything of the sort. And yes, I did get the message. Perhaps I do not understand, can there be consensus building? Please, attempt to be kind and polite, and I will listen and obey. ] 09:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
:* Smeelgova, Jossi is an admin, a long-term and respected member of the community who came here to give you some advice for your own good - namely that recruiting !votes in a deletion debate is one of the things which really gets people's backs up. The correct response is "Oh, OK." Please just learn from it and move on. Making a mistake once because you didn't know about something is No Big Deal. Arguing the toss about how it wasn't really a problem and it's all someoen else's fault and nobody should have the temerity to tell you that you've violated the community norms, well, that's the kind of thing that tends to have no good result. <b>]</b> 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::Wow, so many new admins make me confused! I still maintain that since the original notice, I have ceased whatever it is that you all had a problem with. I have only continued this discussion because I still want more clarification. There was a reference to "consensus building" above. How does one go about "consensus building" without risking being summarily blocked by an all-knowing '''Misplaced Pages Administrator''', who judges something not to be "consensus building" but something else, in their opinion? What is consensus building if you are prevented from posting on others talk pages about things that interest you, or things that you want to build consensus on? Yours, ] 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
::: So just accept that you have been informed of a community norm of which you were ignorant (God knows there are enough of them) and drop it. It's the argufying that causes the problem. One goes about consensus building through processes such as ]. <b>]</b> 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:'''Thank you''' for the advice just given as advice, however I '''still''' don't appreciate your command tone/grammar "So just accept that...and drop it.", That's not nice. I can choose to accept what I wish and/or drop what I wish. There's no way that I should get blocked just for refusing to end a discussion about something on a talk-page (especially my '''own''' talk page), if I've already ceased the editing-actions in question. '''Anyway''''... another question: OK, so you said I can go to ] for "consensus building". But that looks like it's just for existing disputes. What about just things that I want to inform other editors of similar interests about? How can I get the word out to editors of similar mind, who may not mind a simple note on their talk pages? Is there a policy or procedure for this? Yours, ] 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
:: Article RfCs exist to help establish consensus in content disputes. Whether or not you appreciate the tone of advice given to you is pretty much irrelevant: when someone tasked by the community with policing its policies tells you that you should not do something, the correct response is to learn and move on. Wikilawyering about the status of the advice, and the tone in whihc it is given, is considered disruptive. It really is no big deal ''unless you make it one''; you seem intent on doing so. I'm sure that is not your aim, so again I suggest you just drop it. <b>]</b> 12:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)



== Request ==

Hi there! There is presently an ] relating to Fresheneesz, whom you might remember from the UniModal discussions in April. I have seen some indication that you may have been the target of vexatious litigation, or possibly harassment, on his part. Speaking as his present target, I would appreciate it if you could comment on your experiences with him. Thanks. ] 15:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
: My experience with him is that no amount of patient explanation will ever persuade huim that he is wrong, or that your view is based on anything other than blind prejudice. Actually this is a little unfair - I have a stubborn streak a mile wide myself - but I found him to be possibly the single most frustrating editor I have ever come across. See ] and archives, ] and archives, ], ] etc. I suspect that the crusade against notability is the result of the removal of ], a fictional implementation of a hypothetical transport mode, as a merge and redirect. Fresh warred over this and re-created the content as soon as he was able to. Compare Fresh's original with the current version. ] may be able to give you a less jaundiced view. <b>]</b> 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== Dictionaries? ==

Howdy - I saw your commentary over at the ] page. May I ask which dictionaries you use, and what you think of them. I've been looking for a more modern dictionary than those I already have, but haven't been very impressed with the few I've had a chance to review at length. Thanks. --] 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
: I find Merriam-Webster's Collegiate is very good for US usage, and for British usage I have always preferred the Oxford (Concise generally). <b>]</b> 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks --] 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== I ask here so as not to stir things up on the Talk page... ==

regarding ''MaT''. My experience has been to use ''MaT'' as indicative of a threesome, but I'll admit that it's not a phrase that I use often. In your experience (as a speaker of English) would ''MaT'' describe something similar to a marraige between three people (and I'm including not just a sexual life (which may not be present at all in some marraiges) but also the shared resources and interdependency, emotional attachements, sense of unity, etc)? Do I have that right?--] 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

==Unaccredited med school issues==

See the ], for anon's issues. ] 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

{{Userlinks|PrivateEditor}}and {{Userlinks|Rootology}} are banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, ] 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

=="I absolutely agree that Jaskaramdeep is an editor of an incredibly trying kind"==
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but antagonizing someone in this way, in a place he's likely never to find it, is violating WP Civil, no?. Perhaps if you had actually read the page and saw that I provided links to ALL of the statements Muero said were POV, you would change your mind. (also, not every editor agreed with Muero - he has a history of "exaggerating" the truth. Several said there needed to be a balance between his dry version and my overly congratulatory version). ] 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
: You could always try being less... trying. If you want to write a fanblog, please try myspace. <b>]</b> 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::What does it mean to be "trying"? Is it consistantly engaging yourself in altercations by promoting yourself to the status of "Wikicop"; showing those who you deem lesser than youself that they are, infact, lesser than yourself? Or is it minding your own business, sincerely attempting to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and getting upset when the self-proclaimed Wikicop deletes 3/4 of your article, citing POV, when you can (and have several times) provided links that show that the removed substance was not POV? Perhaps this time, before responding and accusing me of writing a fanblog, you should ''read the talk page'' to see my responses to his accusations of POV. ] 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::: It means trying the patience of other editors. Especially by ]. And actually some of us ''are'' Wikicops. Plus, if you notice, I suggested a ] as an alternative to edit warring, raise here by ''someone else'' after I told him to stop edit warring. You were, however, unintentionally correct in your edit summary: there was no NPOV in your edit. <b>]</b> 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Now I'm confused. What agenda am I promoting? A thorough Ales Hemsky page. What agenda is Muero, a Detroit Red Wings fan, promoting? Removing all positive information possible from the page of the player who scored two goals late in the third period of Game 6 which knocked the Wings out of the first round of the playoffs. I'm sorry, but if anyone has a hidden agenda, it is Muero. ] 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::"THIS IS HEMSKY'S WORLD; we just live here" <b>]</b> 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::As I already said, my agenda (if any), is a thorough Ales Hemsky page. You said that the material I re-added (which was subseqently removed) was not POV, so I don't see how my being a fan of this player (which your quote shows) is cause for any concern. However, you ignored my concern with Muero's ability to be unbiased in the article. Do you think it's a coincidence that he only started removal of "POV" from this page after the player scored two miraculous goals to break the heart of his team, and send Steve Yzerman into retirement on a sour note in what was supposed to be "Detroit's Year"? ] 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::: As you also already said, your version was "overly congratulatory". That translates to a violation of one of our core polciies: ]. Feel free to learn and move on. <b>]</b> 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::As I said, ''some other users referred to my '''''initial''''' '' version as overly congratulatory. Sometimes I wonder about the point of discussing issues with people who try and twist the truth to their advantage. If being "trying" is due to being too rational, then I guess I'm going to have to live with that. You still haven't addressed my concern with Muero ] 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::: And other edits were, similarly, excessively congratulatory. Plus, as noted above, I was actually admonoshing someone else entirely. Off you go, now, and don't do it again. <b>]</b> 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
lol, off I go indeed. Thank you, though. And not just for the entertaning dodging of my valid concern with Muero. It is through your completely irrelivant responses, and lack of any accuracy whatsoever regarding my comments that I have decided that some people on this site are just, for lack of a better term, '''dense'''. I have chosen to ignore such people in the future. Peace out ] 21:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
: Translation: you refuse to acknowledge any fault whatsoever and will go on your way secure in the kowledge that it is ''everybody else'' who is wrong. In other words, a garden variety ]. Why ask, I wonder, if you're not going to listen to the answer? <b>]</b> 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::You just keep digging youself into a deeper and deeper hole, man, This is exactly what I am referring to when I say that you lack any accuracy whatsoever concerning my comments. Twice I asked you to read the talk page. ''Twice''. Perhaps if you did, you would have stumbled across this quote from me: "As I've already said, looking back, lots of the stuff I originally wrote was POV, and should have been removed. But lots wasn't, and still hasn't been restored, even though I've provided links". If this doesn't prove that you're unwilling to look at the facts, nothing will. ] 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::: So you say. Me, I tend to the view that you may not be the person best qualified to judge the quality of your own work. Further discussion of this particular issue should be directed ]. <b>]</b> 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I think that's the sound of a checkmate. Thanks for this. It feels good to know that when I don't get angry at the other party so that they can bring up WP Civil to end the discussion, the rational basis of my argument will win out. This was productive! ] 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::: I am certainly open to that possibility, as son as you state this supposed rational basis I can make an informed judgemnt. <b>]</b> 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== Fortuna saga ==
* {{article|Fortuna Saga}}

Recently, you deleted the Fortuna Saga Misplaced Pages page. I belive it should be undeleted, and urge you to check out the deletion review about it. {{unsigned|Miles C.}} {{spa|Miles C.}}
* No deletion review exists. If you want to start one, do be sure to bring evidence of this being the principal subject of multiple non-trivial articles in ] independent of the subject, also include those references which allow us to verify the neutrality of the article and establish its objective significance as rated by independent authorities. Note that blogs and edit-yourself sites are not acceptable sources. <b>]</b> 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
**Guy, the deletion review now exists at ]. As you already know, over at DRV we like to get comments from the deleting admin. ] 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== Fortuna Saga ==

I don't mean to be rude, but is there a reason why you deleted the Fortuna Saga page? People can search nearly anything on wikipedia, but now they'll never find the Fortuna Saga. Just wondering the logic behind that decision.
: If you want to find Fortuna Saga then Google is your friend. I remain unconvinced that anyone ''will'' be loking for it here, mind, since there are zero cited sources in the article. The answer to your question is at DRV right now, see above. <b>]</b> 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::In the deletion review, you'd mentioned your willingness to transfer the last content to a userspace so it can be taken out of Misplaced Pages. However, any mention of it in the deletion review itself has gone unnoticed. If there is some specific process required for this to happen, please let me know. Otherwise, however, I'd like for this to be done into my userspace, so this issue can be put to rest. ] 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::: All you need to do is ask a passing admin (e.g. me). ], I'll delete it from there in a couple of days. <b>]</b> 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: I've got the source saved, and I will make it available to the rest of the Fortuna Saga community. Thank you for your help; you can delete it whenever you like now. ] 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Hi Guy. I'm looking at doing the transwiki to Comixpedia, and it appears that when I originally edited the Fortuna Saga article I somehow managed to nuke the history prior to my edits in the process of changing the page title from "Fortuna saga" to "Fortuna Saga". In respect for the terms of the GFDL, is there any way to get the rest of the history back so it can be preserved in the transwiki process? (I feel like such a nerd right now, writing this kind of stuff... ;) ] 09:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

==Thank You==
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc"
|-
|]
|'''For offering your opinion at''' ]. '''The article was deleted.''' ''"The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice."'' ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. ] 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
|}


==]==
Regarding the warning you issued this user: can I suggest more caution? I have not observed any disruption of the ] article. He was in a rather nast edit war, but the other party was as reposnsible as he was. Feel free to contact me for more information. ] 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

: The principal difference is that <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> does not seem to be active anywhere else or doing anything other than disrupting - and has the block log to prove it. <b>]</b> 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

== Ackoz ==
Thank you. 06:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) {{unsigned|Ackoz}}
: You are most welcome. <b>]</b> 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was looking through this page to see if there was any discussions about current Rouge admin events (I know I should get out more) and I stumbled across this little exchange and it fascinated me:
:did you help him with an edit? boring.
::did you fight off the Mongol hordes? more likely.
:::did you give her a baby? nice idea, but ...
::::did you massage his ego? not like you.
:::::did you lend her your rouge lipstick? ah, now we are getting somewhere.
::::::whatever it was, please don't tell me; I am enjoying imagining. ] 13:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

* As you rightly guess it was duller than you would like, your speculation is ''far'' more entertaining :-) <b>]</b> 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== Help? ==

I recently created an article that was deleted then recreated as a terrible stub. Is it still possible to retrieve the original article that was deleted even though the page has been recreated? Could you also find out why the article was deleted. The article is called "The ''']''' . Could you retrieve it and give it to me to improve? Thanks ''']]''' <small><sup> ''']''' </sup></small> 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:It was a copyvio speedily deletable under ]. The deletion log is . ] 11:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for that MERC. Sorry for the bad grammer. I fixed it though. ''']]''' <small><sup> ''']''' </sup></small> 12:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

== Can I change my User name with your authorization? ==

I'm sorry. I've been way too immature on Misplaced Pages and I really wanna stop. So, with your authorization, can I create a new username to start all over with a clean slate? You can have administrators watch me and espionage everything I do. Please answer me as soon as you can. Thanks. ] 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Air Training Corps - List of Squadrons ==

I agree really, but I was looking for a way to disuade additions. There is no easy list on the official web site. ] 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
: The wing sites usually have a list, though - and frankly, finding the squadron is best done by going to the region or wing anyway, as it won't necessarily be obvious which is the right one. I do get ''seriously'' pissed off with people who delete "don't add ''foo''" comments and then add ''foo'', which is what's been going on here for a while. ] applies. <b>]</b> 12:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] unjustified deletion ==
Hi JzG, I noticed that you attempted to suppress ] via a deletion nomination. The time has now come for you to provide a straight answer: are you part of a Cubeless conspiracy, do you support 1-corner singularity religion or academia, and is it your aim to silence all mention of Time Cube and to brainwash humanity into a death-cursed stupor that will lead them to terrible explosive Armageddon? {{unsigned|211.28.5.186}}
: The single word "suppress" tells us everything we need to know here. Misplaced Pages is not the place to promulgate deranged theories. <b>]</b> 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Guy, thanks for your comments on the ] the ''']'''. I've written a response there that I hope you might have a look at. Thanks again. - ] 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

: Guy, will you consider changing your position on ]?. - ] 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== User:SandyGeorgia ==

{{User|SandyGeorgia}}, a user two weeks ago you threatened to block, is at it again. ] 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like a content dispute and the clashing of two robust editors to me. She's a valuable and respected editor, as is Arbusto. I would urge dispute resolution over ''any'' talk of blocking or such like. --] 12:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::Not to worry, Kingboyk. What I am "at again" is restoring a POV tag that was removed (three times, no less) by Arbustoo; he has expressed the idea that POV expires after a week, if there is no further discussion, and no attempt by the editor who inserted a campaign attack ad into a bio to neutralize the information. As far as I know, POV doesn't expire :-) ] (]) 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::: You're right there is no expiration date for tags. However, you are the only one who has POV issues and you added the tag. You have not made any proposal for changes nor have addressed the issue in the last week. Thus, no POV debate=no tag. ] 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Incorrect. Arbustoo, I'm noticing a pattern of incorrect statements about my edits across a number of unrelated talk pages, while you seem reluctant to engage in conversation in the appropriate places, which in this case, is the article talk page, where the explanations for the POV tag have been detailed since the Farrell attack ad was added to the Shays' article. Please confine your commentary about my edits on articles to article talk pages; it may appear that you want to paint a certain picture of my edits across a wide number of talk pages, rather than engaging productively on the article talk page. ] (]) 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::::: We're looking at a well-trodden path here. Document on Talk, in detail, what you would like to see change, discuss, and if you can't agree go to ]. Keep ] in mind at all times, and do not be tempted to give undue weight to campaign claims of the subject or his opponents. If all else fails, roll back to the version before the campaign and wait until after the election. We have no publication deadline. <b>]</b> 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::Sound advice, JzG &mdash; except for the Wikilink to deletion review as dispute resolution :-) Arbustoo and Francisx seem concerned about election deadlines; correction of POV issues and removal of undue weight paragraphs has not been possible so far. Until/unless they agree to work on the POV together, I can only continue to maintain the tag, and move on to other work that keeps me quite busy on Wiki. I'm sorry this issue continues to pop up on your talk page. Regards, ] (]) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Always be open to the possibility that the other editors involved in the dispute are right. <b>]</b> 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: As soon as I'm caught up on backlogged work, I'll have a look at that possibility on the Shays' article (there are pretty clearly issues of undue weight there, how to fix the rest is harder). In the meantime, I'm expending unnecessary effort defending myself against inaccurate claims Arbustoo is spreading across numerous talk pages, instead of focusing his efforts on resolving issues on the article talk pages. Thanks for the advice, ] (]) 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

: There is no deadline: Perhaps you should not POV tag an article when you cannot address the POV, and not before. Also perhaps you shouldn't remove the entire controversy section until .] 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::You are confused on both counts, Arbustoo. It's not my obligation to address someone else's POV, and there was clear consensus on the Media Matters material. Can you please confine your comments to article talk pages in the future, so we don't have to keep abusing of JzG's talk page? Working things out directly with involved editors can be so much more effective then running to an admin whenver you have a difference. Thanks, ] (]) 02:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] encore ==

Guy, thanks for your comments. I think I've finally realized the desired idea and have merged ], ] and ]. Thanks again. - ] 03:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Good work. <b>]</b> 08:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== Fact Finder ==

Just a heads up, {{User3|Fact Finder}} is claiming, thru {{t1|unblock}}, that he should be unblocked, because he claims everything has been sorted out between you and him. Thought you'd like to have a look. See ]. Cheers, <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">''']]]'''</span> 11:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


== Cabals ==
I came across ]. It's superficially intended to seek out "Strivercruft", but lately it seems to have become rather more wide-ranging and overtly politicised in its goals, and becoming a source of Wikidrama into the bargain. Since the Userproject:Conservatives thingy was rightly squished, I'm wondering to myself if the above page would be a suitable subject for MfD. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance, 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
: It's a valid use for a subpage, tracking the growth of 9/11 conspiracy articles, if you feel it is overly personalised then you can edit it mercilessly. <b>]</b> 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the opinion, ] ] 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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, ].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, ] 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==Green Week?==
Is ] about the same thing as the one discussed ]? I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask to be sure. --] | ] 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:No, that was a band (or hoax band). But this one is a ] failure to my reading... <b>]</b> 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== WHO ==


==Well==
Hi, 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'm curious about the guy at the WHO who is corrupting their reports. Do you have any links about the WHO's helmet policy? Thanks, ] 02:37, 24 October 2006 (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==
: It's not "corrupting" as such, but Philip Graitcer is a "liddite" - a true believer - and the reports he writes and the advice he gives are from the standpoint of accepting TR&T 1989 and the Thompsons' other work at face value. He will not respond to questions about the awkward reality that there is no known population anywhere in the world where cyclist head injury rates have improved as a result of changes in helmet use. The same problem caused the BMA volte-face last year. <b>]</b> 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Good to see you back in the saddle. ]. ] 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
: Agreed - good to see you back. ] 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


==Thank you==
...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)


== SEO Contests == == Possible BLP issue ==
*{{article|SEO contest}}
You're joking right? About the SEO Contest article and the ''alleged'' pagerank. Please tell me you were joking... ] 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
: In what way? <b>]</b> 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:: Well I meant your mini-rant about pagerank. Misplaced Pages is not about pagerank any longer. We can get back to linking to pages we like to reference, instead of making people guess. I agree there's a lot of linkspam these days, but there's no need to exaggerate IMHO.
:: Funny thing is that I can't be arsed about the links because they are not pointing to my own sites. What I don't like is Misplaced Pages articles turning into incestuous little bits of semi-info, solely designed to keep people on the site. I mean come on: do we have to turn each and every single date into ] ]th, ] FCOL.
::Articles without external references are nigh-worthless, in my view. They suggest Misplaced Pages is the sole source of info while making it obvious that it is not. They make it look like the info is all made up. (LOL, I just realised those remarks are best replied to with "Ok, I'll just delete the article then, at your request". I've seen that happen before - recently. Still, I presume you're not like that, since I've seen your previous edits which were not as harsh as your earlier ones and which put you on my "mental ''serious WP editor'' list" a long time ago.)
::I have to ask you though: Are you still having fun editing for Misplaced Pages? ] 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


An AfD was put up by a relatively new contributor, {{User3|Ontheveldt}}, as his 3rd contribution to en.Misplaced Pages. His second contribution to Misplaced Pages was to create the category, People from Middletown, Ohio, Dr Jan Adams' hometown. However, instead of immediately adding Dr Jan Adams to this category, he immediately nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion. I suspect this is personal between Ontheveldt and Dr Jan Adams, however, I'm on wiki-break, and if you or someone watching your talk page, would monitor this situation if something more develops, I would appreciate it? Yes, yes, I know everyone is thinking, "Damn, Ontheveldt is more 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)
== Sanity check requested - ] ==

Guy, William, if you guys get a chance, can you take a look at ] and let me know what you think? I hope I'm not in an edit war, but it's getting close to an edit border conflict or something, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, ] 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Diploma mills ==

*], the place Hovind was "educated" via the USPS mail service with, is getting hit by a new user.

He is acting in good faith, but he does need a warning from someone else that removing references to it being a mill is not acceptable. He is removing that is is considered a diploma mill from the introduction. Also unrelated to a warning, he wants to explain it isn't on the FTC (that's right the Federal '''Trade''' Commission) list of diploma mills. How does the latter mean its not a mill? ] 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*] was recreated after being deleted ]. The new version claims its accredited, which isn't true. The creator . ] 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*] is a spammy ad page created a new user with the same name today. Speedy per corp without notability? ] 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:* Thanks. ] deleted as ] G11 and G4 and ]. <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> is a ] and has been warned to desist. ] was also a blatant advertisement from a SPA (hurrah for G11) and it, and the redirect at ], have been speedied. <b>]</b> 10:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nations University is actually NOT a diploma mill. It is an unaccredited, non-profit school for reasons listed in its article...namely that it offers all of its resources for no charge, and has a student body scattered about the globe, making campus size and library size impossible accreditation categories to fulfill. I am a relatively new editor to wikipedia, but the opening page said to make contributions on subjects on which you were knowledgable. Therefore, I have only edited a few pages. Naturally, I would not be editing a wide variety of pages during my first few days as an editor. If you feel an article's language is too slanted or not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it would be appreciated if you simply suggest that the author revise it, rather than speedy deleting it. It is natural that one would be slightly slanted towards subjects about which one cares enough to contribute an article. ] 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
: Every unaccredited school has a '']'' why it, unlike its accredited competitiors, shold take a principled stand against accreditation. This holds across the entire gamut, from the PO Box diploma mill to the substantial campus Bible college. <b>]</b> 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*Civility is thrown out the window on ]. Can an independent person step in and talk the user about this? Example: ""? ] 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

*] doesn't look notable. What do you think? ] 01:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

*] is a new article without notablity; unrecognized accreditor. Speedy? ] 07:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
*] is another one. Speedy? ] 08:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
*] is created by the same user above. Speedy? ] 08:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
*Pattern vandalism at ]. ] 03:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

*We don't allow unaccredited schools to claim to want legit accreditation, should ] be an exception. See these: If it becomes a candiate for accreditation that is woth mentioning, but posting that its website claims to '''want''' accreditation is silly. The removal of the mention that it is not a canidate for accreditation citing WP:OR is equally as silly. ] 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

*Dumb edit war at ], an anon. IP insists on incorrectly linking and listing items. ] 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

: I've been looking through these, thanks. The usual mix of spam and special pleading, of course. <b>]</b> 09:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::Advice need on ]. ] 23:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

*Our ] is getting mentions as a good resource at various educational websites! ] 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:* That is interesting! Our sources need to be kept carefully neutral and reliable, but it's certainly an endorsement wirth mentioning on the Talk page. <b>]</b> 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Thank you for participating in my recent ]. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Misplaced Pages community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --] 09:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==

JzG, you've expressed an interest in this article before -- can you take a look at ] and leave a note as to whether you think the proposed draft is acceptable as a replacement for the existing stub?

Thanks,

--] 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Is removing commercial links vandalism? ==

This is on my talk page. I received these two vandalism warnings today:

'''*First warning:'''

--Vandalism warming--

{{tl|test2a-n|Winterstar Symposium}} -] (]) 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

'''*Second warning:'''

--Removing citations is vandalism--

Please stop removing citations from articles. It is vandalism--

{{tl|test4}} -999
**Vandalism warnings replaced with template calls on Guy's page only. --] 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

----

'''*My actual behavior:'''

The "vandalism" of ] consisted of (as recorded in the edit summary) -- (External link - removing 1 of 2 links to a Rosencomet commercial site as 2 links to exact same site address are unnecessarily commercial). This was one edit only. I have not edited that article since, so I do not know what the second warning refers to. The last time I edited that article was October 12, 2006.

An administrator ] 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) removed them. But now they are back minutes later, now placed by ]. This all has do do with the ] commercial links. Can I be blocked for removing a commerical link in an article? Thanks! ] 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] got the point ==

Finally someone did. I can go home now.

<blockquote>A more pertinent issue to examine might be the probable by {{User|Rosencomet}} of his website, often using the claim that they're "citations". --] 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)</blockquote>
My complements to him, enabled by ]'s valient (reckless?) attack. I can rest in my grave now. ]] 03:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Advice request ==

Hi, {{User|Calton}} suggested that I ask you for advice, and stated that he would take take the blame for me bothering you. ;-). There is currently some contention between, on the one hand Calton and myself, and on the other hand {{User|Hanuman Das}}, {{User|Rosencomet}} and {{User|999}}. The contention is over a large number of links inserted by the latter editors, and removed by the former. Calton and I may see things slightly differently, so the view I present is purely my own.
The editors on the "insert" side, have been inserting links to ostensibly as references to support assertions in a number of articles about various musicians as well as others. I think there are definite conflict of interest issues, but that aside, the links appear to me as link spam. (Calton, I believe is more concerned with the "internal" linkspam aspect of these edits). I have that references need to be from reliable third party sources and not a promotional website. We briefly argued the issue , , , but this did not prevent a a new round of insertions and deletions.

If you have time, I would very much like to know your opinion on this matter. Please do not be afraid to tell me if you think I am mistaken, either about the policy, or about the best way to proceed. Thanks. Sincerely, --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== rosencomet ==

Sorry to start a new section, I am in a cafe in Dusseldorf and my Blackberry browser is a bit crippled.

I diagnose spam. Links added by the webmaster, site has no evident authority or editorial board, 999 looks like a possible role account or sock. Nuke the lot and if necessary ask for blacklisting, is my gut reaction here. <b>]</b> 08:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::Hi, sorry to bother you again. Two items. First a report. Have been unsuccessful in discussing the matter with rosencomet. Nuking the links has resulted in rosencomet, 999, ekajati and Hanuman Das reinserting them. Calton will be filing a report on AN/I tomorrow. Second, I'm not in the habit of removing warnings from my own talk page, but prefer to have them reviewed by third parties. Could you take a look at and remove or keep as you feel is appropriate. Thanks. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I've removed it and the preceding thread too. It's quite clearly not vandalism and no involved party is so new that they need to be told about the sandbox! :) --] 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Devilmaycares ==

I'm filing a ] against Devilmaycares' conduct. Since you have former dealings with him I'd really appreciate your input into the proceedings. ---] (]|]) 18:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. I apreciate your input. ---] (]|]) 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== A non admin-related acknowledgment ==

Just thought I'd add this note... well done! I see you everywhere lately, keep it up! ''']''' <sup>''] | <font color="green">]''</font></sup> 05:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

== Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29 - Pending ==
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Pending' section of the ].

* If the coaching has started and is ongoing please move the entry to the 'active' section of the box'.
* If the coaching has finished/never going to start please add your trainee to the archived requests section of ], and remove the entry from the coaching box.
* You can fill in information about your former students, at the ].
* If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
* If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on ].

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! ]<font color="green">]</font>] <b><sup><font color="#CCCCFF">]</font></sup></b> 22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

== {{user|WikiWoo}} is back ==

Dear Guy

I've filed a request for check-user on {{user|Brampton 2006}}, whom I strongly suspect is a sock puppet of our old friend WW, at ]. Since you have dealt with him pretty extensively in the past, I thought you might want a heads-up. Cheers, ] 07:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
: Blocked. I've had a gutfull of that one. <b>]</b> 10:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::Can you help block his other sockpuppets? Checkuser ], and has identified several other sockpuppets:
::* {{user|Gay2day}}
::* {{user|Plato2100}}
::* {{user|Soliman2}}
::* {{user|Cranch2}}
::* {{user|NotYouToo}}
::* {{user|WhoseUdady}}
::* {{user|E64.15.147.171}}
::I've placed what I believe is the appropriate sockpuppet template on the userpages. Thanks. --] 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)



==Mark Steere==
Something that I found on him at BoardGameGeek:

My recent experiences in SDG were terrible: I had a weird discussion on the *true* meaning of the word "simultaneous" as if there were just one truth, one *true* definition. This reminded me rather of the world view of religious cults who want to save you and who claim that just they can do it. This was followed in other threads by a deliberate
misquotation to make me look ungrateful, and, instead of real arguments, the other side was called "ridiculous", "megalomanic" and "pseudo-intellectual". I got an e-mail that warned me against a "troll" who dominates all the discussions and, I should add, is permitted to insult everybody. I met him soon. There is an atmosphere of fear
generated by the owner of the group who supports this kind of behavior and then exclude those from the SDG discussion forum who defend themselves. So, take care of yourself and keep a low profile if you chose to play there. If you want to know more, just write me privately, join the group stacking games at Yahoo! ( http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/stacking_games/ ) or just take a look at the recent discussions in SDG forums to see how this (pseudo-)community ticks; e.g.
http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=427
http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=429
http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=431
http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=434
http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=436
:::Thank you for posting the links to the discussions. I think they will speak for themselves. I remain deeply saddened by the actions I felt I had to take but still feel they were the right thing to do. SDG remains an open, free, and above all safe place to gather and play abstract strategy with others around the world. All are welcome. The above list of relevant discussion threads should also include the following: http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=438

Any place in which Mark Steere is allowed to intimidate other users can hardly be called "safe" (especially if he is supported by Aaron Dalton):
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Steere
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive50#MarkSteere
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_3&diff=62194693&oldid=62193047
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/stacking-games/message/1...
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/91...
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/86...
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/85...
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mancalagames/message/130...

== I disagree with your deletion of the Time cover in the Goatse article ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Goatse.cx#TIME_cover is my reasoning, posted before your edit . If it's the caption you have issue with, that can be changed. I think that image contributes to the article simply by making it more interesting. The cover is a humorous accidental allusion to goatse.cx. Nobody in any seriousness thinks that this "accidental goatse" was intentional, although the resemblance can't be argued. So I don't think ] even comes into play here.

I won't myself add the image back unless you read my reasoning and change your mind, but that image has been fought over for awhile. Before you came along, two people removed it and two people put it back, all different people. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 17:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

: So it's disputed. Which means: we need an external reliable source. Actually, scrub that: according to ] you can't use a Time cover on any article other than the one on Time magazine. <b>]</b> 17:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::Throwing the fair use issue into the argument definitely tips the scales toward removal. I'm okay with it now. Thanks for your reply. —] <sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

== Why did you delete Nowhere-Else and Beyond? ==
:''{{article|Nowhere-Else and Beyond}}''

Okay, I saw the log for Nowhere-Else and Beyond's deletion and it said "Absolutely no signs of significant value". That doesn't make sense since it ''is'' a MMORPG and the article was also under development. What are the '''signs of significant value''' to you? If you deleted Nowhere-Else and Beyond you should also delete the other MMORPG pages because most of them are no different than Nowhere-Else and Beyond's page. What I'm getting at, is that I want a good reason for Nowhere-Else and Beyond being deleted.
] 13:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

: What I said was: ''no evidence of significance''. Feel free to rewrite it in terms which unequivocally demonstrate its importance, by reference to the multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources of which it has been primary subject. Of course, if it hasn't ''been'' the primary subject of any non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, that would be an indication that we cannot cover it without violating policy. <b>]</b> 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::So what you're saying is that I should re-write the article giving secondary sources that give reference to what I put into the article, right? I;m sorry if I misunderstand you as I'm probably not as old as you think I am and some of what you said is a bit confusing to me. ] 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::: I always assume that anybody writing about a browser-based game is the same age as my elder son, who is twelve :-) So, what you need to do (ideally in your user space, for example ]) is to document the game ''exclusively'' from ], such as reviews from computer magazines. What ''you'' know, ''we'' can't ]. Above all you must establish the ] of the game. There are some guidelines at ] which might help you out. <b>]</b> 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: Thank you! '''''That''''' was what I wanted to know! I have only one more question, can I have what was already written for the Nowhere-Else and Beyond article to revise. I was working on getting secondary sources, but that was taking some time. I needed a base on which to start, so I wrote what was there and said it was unfinished. Anyway, if I could have what I had already written I would be greatly appreciative! ] 14:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: Presto: ]. Please tell M. Bertrand that editing articles on oneself or one's own endeavours is ]. <b>]</b> 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::He (M. Bertrand) was not editing it for his own good but rather for the good of the article since it was so short. He was just adding information about the site, although it was from a primary source it was not bias and, as far as I could tell strictly information. And since anyone could edit it, if they found it incorrect they could of course edit it themselves. I'm also sorry to say that I have yet another question: Could I use information from the players of Nowhere-Else and Beyond's web pages? The problem with this being that their web pages are hosted on Nowhere-Else and Beyond (Although it is all original information and was all written by the players themselves). ] 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Even so, ''things you know'' are counted unverifiable. The answer for M. Bertrand is the same as the answer for the player info: only as a last resort. All articles should draw primarily from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. <b>]</b> 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: But the players are a secondary source, if players are not a secondary source then it is impossible to have any source but the primary one. So, you're saying that information can come from reviews of the game by non-players? ] 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: Nope. They are not a ''reliable'' source and anything drawn from what the players write is ]. It is also a waste of time if the game has not been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Start with the magazine articles and see how far you get. If there are no magazine articles, tag it {{tl|db-author}} and find something else to write about. <b>]</b> 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: I don't think I worded that last question right, and I will elaborate on it: If information can't come from a player, it is ''impossible'' to get any information on the game as non-players don't have access to any of the features in game. Even the people who write magazine articles are writing information that they either got from a player, or they found out themselves from playing. From what I see, the only way I can get information is if someone posts information about it and then I take that. (BTW I will have a magazine article that I will include for information) ] 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: If player writeups are the sole source, then we can't have an article. An independent non-trivial review will contain details of gameplay. <b>]</b> 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::: And how is an independent non-trivial review going to come into being if it can't be written by players? It can't happen, it's impossible for any game to have information that doesn't come from a player of that game, because people who don't play that game can't say what is in it unless they know about that game! I do have articles that are written by players for publication in an actual magazine that isn't affiliated with Nowhere-Else and Beyond. ( Also, I have found a game article that doesn't appear to have any other noted sources: ]) ] 18:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Simple. One of the big gaming magazines writes up the current crop of browser games. If none of the big gaming magazines have written it up, then it almost certainly fails the inclusion guidelines. <b>]</b> 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:If I can chime in, Garth, JzG isn't acting personally towards you; he's just explaining the widely accepted standards for starting new WP articles. As further advice, the ''first'' thing that you would need to do to create an article would be to establish ] through ] and ] sources. (Follow those links for more information about each of those policies/guidelines). As a threshold matter, if there aren't some external sources discussing a game, it's not ready yet for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ] discusses the standards that apply to websites, but as a general rule of thumb, if there aren't two "non-trivial" reliable sources discussing the site, it won't be found sufficiently "notable" for wikipedia. (I discussed this issue with another editor regarding a role-playing game recently -- see ], item 4, and thereafter).
:The best thing to do might be to canvas any relevant chat groups or e-mail the author and see if they know of any reviews. If not, your best options are to create a page outside of Misplaced Pages (there's no shame in that), or to start up an (off-Misplaced Pages) campaign to write to some of the leading gaming or web magazines and request that they review the game. Thanks, ] 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:: I am willing to find these articles, I have never said I wouldn't, only that they have to be players to review the game (which he stated would not be a secondary source). I am also trying to bring to your attention the multiple games that are not listed in any gaming magazines I know of, and their only visible source of information is from the main site and its subsidiaries, just look at the ], it's full of links to articles like that. ] 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Chances are, when someone notices them, they will get deleted. I know the policy is enforced mostly when someone notices things, but (1) it's a volunteer project; and (2) the editors do work very hard. Thanks, ] 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: Another question: Would it be possible for the people who delete these articles to leave a message in the Talk page of that article for maybe a week before it was deleted, or on the creators talk page because, had I known it was that close to being deleted I would have tried to find secondary sources sooner. I know it's not required, but it is helpful, and it was a bit odd expecting to see the article and then find it gone without a reason given (Except in the deletion logs). ] 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::No, it isn't. We have several thousand new articles posted each day, of which the majority (sadly) are speedy deletion candidates. Most are removed within minutes. A delay of a week or so would leave Misplaced Pages's charity-funded servers swamped by trash. Within that time, we would have a large minority of our articles being speedy deletion candidates, with more pouring in by the minute, the majority of them stealing bandwidth from a not-for-profit organisation in order to promote themselves or tell the world that their friend is a gay. So we evaporate first and ask people to get it right second. Suggestions for other policies are welcome (although not on Guy's talk page per se) and should address the overall reality, not a single page amongst the multitude. Thanks. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::When I said "these articles", I mean valid articles that have true information from the actual site, or game. (Referring only to MMORPGs) These articles are hard to write because "secondary information" is ''very'' hard to come by since it can't come from the site itself, or directly from players. I completely understand why most articles are deleted right away as this site is full of people who just post nonsense, but for a seemingly valid article thats only problem is not having enough secondary information I don't see why it was deleted without prior warning. ] 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::: This is only a problem if your primary commitment is to documenting games rather then building an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. Anyone who wants to find out what NEaB is about can do so trivially easily. Meanwhile, until yesterday we had no article on ]. <b>]</b> 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: From what I can tell from the ] article, the Nowhere-Else and Beyond article should not have been deleted that quickly. In fact it should have been a proposed deletion, or it should have been tagged with <nowiki>{{cleanup-verify}}</nowiki>, since it wasn't nonsense and only needed more reliable sources. ] 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: This is what is known as ]. The article made no credible claim of notability. Feel free to rewrite it, establishing notability from reliable secondary sources. You have the original to work from. <b>]</b> 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: No, I am looking at them and seeing that only the articles that are either pure gibberish or are obvious vandalism are removed quickly and without prior warning. The articles that are not meant to be trash should have some prior warning, even if it's not a rule it ''is'' common courtesy. Even if the article I wrote didn't prove any of what it said in it, it was still a valid article not meant to clutter up Misplaced Pages, but rather add to it. ] 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: See the bit about fixing it with reliable sources to establish its significance and verify the content? Do that. If you can't, process is irrelevant. If you can, further discussion is unnecessary. <b>]</b> 19:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

== Bloody wonderful! Just... perfect! ==

]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> awards this Barnstar to '''Guy''' for :o)]]

:Seconded. That made me laugh and scare my office neighbour. Well done. ] <small>]</small> 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

== Response ==

I'm still waiting for a response about YouTube and what to do with that. The article in question has been deleted now, but I'm still curious on how we are to proceed. See ]. ] 22:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
: Sorry, been busy. The answer is to work on the section on YouTube personalities, with a brief (cited from external sources) synopsis of the ones which have been most significant. If you need the deleted content, I will userfy it for you. <b>]</b> 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

== B. H. Carroll Theological Institute ==

] user is repeatedly removing the cited fact that it is not a canidate for accreditation. ] 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:Could you review Alansohn's comments and edits. ] 18:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:Could you tell this {{user|Alansohn}} to stop calling my edits , , my edits are , , , and so on. ] 04:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Review Alansohn's threats to block {{user|Helical Rift}} (a new user). Clearly a violation of ]. ] 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== Thank you for supporting my RfA ==

{| width="93%" style="border:2px solid gray; background:#f2f2ff; padding:3px; cellspacing:10px;" align=center
| <div style="border:2px solid gray; background:white; padding:0px; width:200px;">]</div>
| valign="top" |'''''Thank you''''' for your support in ''']''', which passed with a final tally of '''(56/0/2)'''. It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have ] to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

:Again, '''''thanks'''''; <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>''']'''</sup>&nbsp;/&nbsp;<sub>''<font color="black">]</font>''</sub>&nbsp;<sup>┐</sup> 13:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
|}


== More Emmalina nonsense == == Hiya ==


Good to see you again! ] 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I reread today after seeing that you reprotected the redirect this morning. Do you really think it's a good idea to go against the closing here, especially since there ''doesn't'' seem to be clear consensus to keep the redirect at this point, especailly since you've offered no input on the talk page? Can I ask you remove the protection in good faith and not add some undue weight to a certain side of the discussion without input and without current consensus? --] <small>]</small> 13:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
: Indeed! ] 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, because there is clear consensus to not have an article, but to redirect it. The fact that the YouTube memes article was removed is secondary; they can be covered in YouTube until they get too big and then we can fork (as long as they are properly cited). <b>]</b> 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::Is there? The latest consensus check seems to be that there...well...isn't any, now that the YouTube memes article is gone. --] <small>]</small> 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Not really; the YouTube memes should be covered as a section in YouTube. Feel free to help ROBBO with that, I think you may well be able to. <b>]</b> 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't really know. I only know ofthe newsworthy ones like ] and ]. And Emmalina, who is conspicuously absent from the way we've handled every other newsworthy YouTuber. I'm actually more concerned with your actions regarding the protection while discussion is ongoing, especially following the DRV result. Did you even discuss it with Xoloz at all? --] <small>]</small> 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: We'd already had the discussion. Several times. ] is a good model here: we briefly mention the popular YTMNDs, but leave it to the YTMND wiki to publish the original research. There is a pressing need to purge Misplaced Pages of YouTube links, a very large proportion of them appear to be copyvios. <b>]</b> 09:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I don't see what the copyvio issue w/YouTube has to do with this one. YTMND is a poor model in this instance - YTMNDs don't get the type of news coverage that certain YouTube celebs do. --] <small>]</small> 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::: I prefer the term "slebrity" to distinguish the famous-for-being-famous from actual celebrities, i.e. those whoa re actually celebrated for some ability :-) <b>]</b> 12:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::That's fine, but I'm actually taking this somewhat seriously right now. How do you contrast two very different things? --] <small>]</small> 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Jeff, I think you have hit upon the problem: you are taking it seriously. Emmalina is a bored teenager who got a small amount of notoriety which will probably embarrass her when she is older. On a global scale this almost but not quite rises to negligible importance. Meanwhile, until a couple of days ago we did not have an article on ], who was, in his day, more famous than Beethoven. I find it really hard to take YouTube memes seriously. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not the YouTube faq, and frankly anybody who wants to know about Emmalina can find out trivially easily. I have no evidence that readers want to find out about her, only that a small number of obsessive teenaged writers want to write about her (and judging from the article as deleted, without bothering about all those tiresome ''reliable sources'', either). They should find something more productive to do, or get a girlfriend or something. Or maybe start their own ''Encyclopaedia Cruftannica''. And that is my ''serious'' take on it. <b>]</b> 13:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::I guess one person's problem is another solution. I do wish you wouldn't let your personal biases regarding the subject stand in way of doing the right thing here, but I know full well I can't stop you, as much as I understand where you're coming from. --] <small>]</small> 13:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::While I'm frustrated, this isn't a reflection on you as much as desire to have this resolved, and possibly by someone completely uninvolved, so I've started a topic at ] just to try to get some neutral review. I have no question regarding your acting in good faith here, but it's obvious both of our biases are clouding things here. --] <small>]</small> 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::: You are rather begging the question fo what is the right thing. Is my bias any better than yours? In my view YouTube is important and should be documented, the fact that it spawns memes is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia, the identities of some of those memes and how they spread is a matter easily worth a sentence or two, but anything ''more'' than a sentence or two on any of these memes - ''any'' of them - is, to my mind, excessive, especially given the way people are having to rewrite policy to redefine reliable in order that we can use unreliable sources to cover them. Plus, I don't see the need. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, what's the problem with going and writing about things that take a little bit of effort to find out about? Subjects like this are not so much low hanging fruit as maggotty half-rotten windfalls. Perhaps I will be in a better frame of mind after I have been to see ] play, this evening :-) <b>]</b> 15:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't know if anyone's biases are better than anyone else's. We both want consistency, and, consistently, we've had articles on the people who transcend YouTube into greater attention - that was essentially the argument at the Notable memes AfD. While you feel they don't deserve more than a line mention, you also wouldn't get any consensus regarding a single-line merge of ], ], or the evolution of dance guy. All I'm looking for is that consistency with this article. But we agree on the last part - cello has a way of making things better. --] <small>]</small> 15:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:(unindent) Jeff, you are pitching your biases against mine. In this case there was an AfD which supported not having a separate article. You'll see fomr my past discussions with ROBBO that whether or not the YT memes article exists, we should aim to cover the memes ''briefly'' in a block, and that can be in YouTube for now until it grows to the point where it needs to be forked. As to whether there would eb a consensus for a single-line merge of Lonelygirl, it might just be worth a try. The sooner we start being an encyclopaedia instead of a cruft-o-rama the better. <b>]</b> 22:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


== Thank you... == == Another strange article ==


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)
...for your kind words of support during my recent RfA. I've always had deep respect for (if not always agreement with) your opinions, so I am particularly humbled that you would consider me worthy of the buttons. If I can ever be of any help with an admin project or just by providing a pair of fresh, idsinterested eyes to review an article, do not hesitate to let me know. If I wasn't on the worng side of the pond, I'd buy you a pint of Abbot Ale (or make you a proper cuppa) to show my gratitude, but i do fear that my simple "thanks" will have to do for now. Cheers. ] <small>(])</small> 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


== Pacific Western == == 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. ] 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I had questions about the edits that were made to the Pacific Western University article, and rolled back the article so that they could be discussed on the talk page here: . I don't think any of your changes were bad, but I think with the pages' recent troubles they need to be more clearly substantiated and discussed before we make them. ] 19:47, 3 November 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)


==]==
== Looking for Interviewees ==
Hello, 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, ].
I am a freelance writer working on an article about the subculture of people who use Misplaced Pages the way the rest of us use MySpace. So I’m looking to interview several Misplaced Pages “addicts” as well as people who, while they don’t consider themselves addicted, do spend a good amount of time on the site editing articles, patrolling for errors, seeking out false articles, fighting for changes they made to be kept in, and otherwise contributing to the site. If you are interested please email me at brianrhodges@gmail.com.


On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This offer is open to anybody else reading this, not just this particular user. But please, don’t come to me with if you’re hoping I’ll be exposing conspiracies or censorship issues amongst the wikipedia higher-ups. That’s not really what this article is about.


==Admin==
Thanks,
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==
Brian] 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a notification that not only hasn't he given up, he seems determined to ]. Note your name on the case. --] | ] 11:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
*See ]. &#9786; ] 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
== Improved AFD discussion ==
* {{On AFD|Wyvern (online game)}}
I've persuaded the proponents of the article to cite sources to support their arguments that the ] criteria are satisfied. Please revisit the discussion, read what is cited, and add your comments on how far they go towards satisfying WP:WEB. ] 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
: Gah! This is a perfect example of the kind of AfD which makes it really hard to be open-minded. Aggressive demands to "do your homework" by visiting links which are ''not cited in the article'' and absolutely no changes whatsoever to the article itself - the link to the game is still 404 right now. No sources, 100% OR, and lots of arm-waving. <b>]</b> 09:48, 4 November 2006 (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)
== MfD FYI ==


: Yup, thanks. Needs to be sorted once and for all, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on some of your edits in the past where you've cited it, I think you may be interested in this MfD debate: ]. Regards, ] 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
: Thanks. I know where they are coming from, but I think it needs fixing not deletion. <b>]</b> 22:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Agreed. ] 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


==]==
== Recreation of a Deletion you did. ==
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)
Your speedy deletion of ] has resulted in a recreation. I've listed it as a G4 CSD candidate, but I thought I should point out that while you were probably right to speedy delete it, you cited the Patent Nonsense criterion, which the material didn't meet at all. The speedy could have been justified under the attack page standard and the AFD result was inevitable, so I doubt anybody'll fuss at you, but I've seen RFCs and asinine policy proposals over lesser offenses than citing the wrong CSD when deleting something. So, I figured I'd give you a friendly pointer on that. ] 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
: That one is staying deleted, and if I need to ] it I will. <b>]</b> 22:19, 4 November 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)
== Re:your response to my comment at ] ==


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-->
Thanks for responding, and apprently two users have warned him. If you don't mind, can I ask you a couple questions regarding this type of situation since your administrator. There are a couple images of his I tagged as copyright violation, but I think 2 I couldn't find a link for, was a wrong to tag them without a link? Also do you think <nowiki>{{PUIdisputed}}</nowiki> tag should have been better in this situation? Thanks. ] 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
: It's tricky, but in this case the rate of creation demanded urgent action. Normally you can just leave it to OrphanBot. Tagging is good, you can tag as unsourced using {{tl|no copyright holder}}. <b>]</b> 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:: A good tag but it seems wrong for such a situation since the copyright status was provided by the user: pd-self, but the images didn't seem to reflect that as being true. Also since it's tagged as pd-self, I dont think OrphanBot would pick such information up. ] 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Yes, I think this one is beyond my simple brain. I'd ask at the Village Pump or WikiEN-L - or maybe one of the copyright gurus at ]. Sorry, that's one for the "too hard" basket. <b>]</b> 11:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: Well thanks for your help. I hope you didn't mind me asking. :) ] 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


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)
== ] ==


== proms ==
The article ] was deleted as "public relations spam". Could you please restore the article to my userspace so that I could try to turn it into something acceptable? -- ] (] | ] 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Went to the proms today - Beethoven, Brahms, surprise extra the Academic Festival Overture, saw Joanna Lumley, met Richard Stilgoe and ran into a friend from the horn society. Good evening out! Guy 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
: I've dealt with this. ] 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Thanks. <b>]</b> 11:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


== Hi Guy == ==Non-help on help page==


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)
] - note my comments here. The DRV requester's claims that the article passes ] are not true, and (may) have been made purely to get the article relisted on AFD. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
: Noted, thanks. <b>]</b> 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC) * Thanks for that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Welcome back ==
Hi, could I request you certify the ], otherwise this RfC would technically be invalid. Thanks very much... ] 15:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
: I can't, as I did not try to resolve the problems, but there are others who could certify it. <b>]</b> 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for letting me know. As it happens this is currently used in the ]. ] 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Your the only person to comment on his talk page regarding his entire behavior and not just one sub-set of actions. ---] (]|]) 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Welcome back, Guy!!! -- ] 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
== Blomby Car ==
:Yes, I'm slow on the uptake. -- ] 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


== Gastrich's latest petition ==
You deleted my article. There is some discussion about it at ] ] 16:46, 6 November 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)
:I refer to this article that you speedied . Please also see the conversation at ]. I initially prodded on the notability question but was persuaded that blowing holes in the project to record all ] arcade games was a bad idea. I would ask that you undelete and, if necessary, put it up for an AfD so that the broader issue can be discussed. ] 16:47, 6 November 2006 (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!" <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


:: ] was deleted as a non-notable company, and ] also made no assertion of notability. <b>]</b> 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
: Please can someone then clean up the "]" - I would hate for any more of my articles to be deleted as this takes a lot of my time and expensive South African bandwidth to do. I am merely going through this list, and MAME list, and adding them for the sake of completeness. Is there somewhere I can check for notability before I add a new article? ] 09:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]

|rowspan="2" |
:: As a rule of thumb, if you can't find at least two non-trivial treatments in reliable sources independent of the subject (e.g. substantial reviews in a major gaming magazine, not one of ten reviewed in a market survey) then the subject is likely to fail the ]. I do regularly clean lists of redlinks, largely to save people wasting their time creating articles on trivial subjects. Time was when a list of redlinks was helpful in increasing coverage of a subject, but these days we have so many articles - especially in pop culture - that it is getting hard to find genuinely notable games which have no articles, and the pendulum has swung the other way, with spam and unverifiable articles being a much bigger problem than lack of coverage. At least in this area. I completely support attempts to document that which is genuinely and verifiably significant but not trivially obtainable via Google, so if you have a stack of old gaming magazines in the cupboard please do cite them as sources and redress the massive bias towards things that happened in the last five minutes. <b>]</b> 10:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''

|-
::: I am too dumb to understand what most of this means :) However, my articles have nothing to do with magazine or online reviews. It is merely taken from MAME including a history and description file within MAME itself. If I find the game to be personally significant then I will add more content from google, or play the game a bit further on to see what happens. Right now I am too scared to add any more content. ] 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
|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)

:::: I do not think MAME is counted as a reliable source. Per ], we must have enough ] to check both the facts and the ] of any article. For many subjects this involves actual work, which is shunned by those who consider Google to be as far as they need look. Misplaced Pages is not Google. So, by all means go through MAME but please make sure that you can find at least a couple of good, non-trivial sources for each subject. If you can't find any, then best to leave it until someone can find sources (or not bother at all) since policy requires them. <b>]</b> 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I would ask you to revisit your recommendation in light of evidence from ''Men Magazine'' itself as to the validity of the statement that Mark Dalton won the "Man of the Year" award. The link is available at the discussion at ], but I am also providing it . Thanks.<font color="FF6600">&mdash;</font>]&nbsp;]&nbsp; 16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

==]==

Can you speedy ]? ] 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, a user claims this mill is accredited in the UK. What do you think? ] 08:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*Speedy ]? ] 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
** MfD it, it appears to be barrow-pushing but I can't think of a speedy category. <b>]</b> 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*Speedy ], redirect for deleted article. ] 00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

==Requesting page protection==

You know what happens when page protection is put in place? If it's on a version the anti-mainstreamers like they stop discussing on the talkpage. If it's on a version that they don't like they complain loudly until it's unprotected. This is exactly what occurred when I was blocked inappropriately. There is almost no bargaining with them. They are tireless tendentious POV-pushers, and arbcom seems to be content to allow them to destroy mainstream articles since they apparently represent "minority scientific opinions". What a lark! How does Fred think he is qualified over myself to determine what a "minority scientific opinion" is? --] 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

: I think that in this case it's less likely to happen. Although all page protctions are, by definition on ], it is pretty easy to document what constitutes mainstream, and the existence of the ArbCom case suggests a halt to edit warring while the committee deliberates. Read the proposed decisions and look which way the wind is blowing. In the end, whatever Tommy might say, ] means that we must reflect the dominant view. So: mainstream must be mentioned in articles on fringe views, but the converse is not true. Treatment should be proportionate, so tiny fringe views should not be the subject of vast walled gardens of articles. The best solution here is to stay calm, wait for ArbCom to decide, and if (as is likely) they ban Tommy from pseudoscience articles, you will be left with a lower level of heat, a clear message, and a community of editors who are, in the end, reasonable people. You may not ''agree'' with Ian, but I suspect you would hold him in somewhat higher regard than Tommy. Use the dispute resolution processes to attract more editors. The more people come along,t he more the balance is likely to reflect orthodox opinion because, after all, that is what mainstream is all about. Just my $0.02. <b>]</b> 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Steven Crum page blanking ==

Guy -

You don't blank a page which is up for deletion, even if it is ]. Indeed, I personally consider this a de-facto example of blanking ]. I do sympathize with your stand, but let's do this in the right way. --] | ] 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
: Actually ''he'' blanked it, or rather replaced the version up for discussion with a barely-coherent rant, so I blanked it to save his embarrassment. <b>]</b> 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:: It's all been a barely-coherent rant IMO. What changed was the content, not the acceptability. I really saw your action as unfair to others, as the result was much more acceptable than anything the Steve had posted. As for any embarrasment, I would point out that
::# Steve had brought it on himself, and
::# that once the MfD is concluded, there will be nothing left to embarass Steve, not even the history.
::--] | ] 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Actually I thought the original version was kind of coherent, just barking mad. And seriously I don't think deleting it will help - the problem is the user, not the content. We need either to persuade him to stop it, or to ban him. <b>]</b> 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

==Thank you for your support!==
{| style="border:2px solid gray; background:#FADDA8; padding:5px;" align=center
|]
<small>23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
|style="text-align:center;"|
If I'm a bit pale in the face now,<br />
it's because of the amazing support <br />
during my recent ]<br />
and because of all those new shiny buttons.<br />

And if in the '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''<br />
my use of them should not always be ''']''' <br />
please don't hesitate to shout ''']''' me<br />
any time, sunset, noon or ''']'''.<br />
|} |}


== PDMA ==
== GFP Personal Finance Manager deletion ==
:''{{article|GFP Personal Finance Manager}} / ]''


Why did you delete the PDMA article? ] 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, if you type gfp and “personal finance” on google you will see that the first 10 result pages are about the software, some of then not in English (Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, French), indeed the software is more used for people that does not speak English natively. Even if you type only GFP on google you will see that that 7th result is about GFP, but it isn’t in Enlgish. It was published in an article on Italian Magazine named “PC Professional” (It’s obviously written in Italian) as you can see clicking on the link in this article: http://gfd.sourceforge.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=12. There are articles about GFP on http://opensourceinstall.org/ (In Chinese), and http://www.clubedohardware.com.br/ (In Brazilian Portuguese). In any of these articles it is indicated as a good Open source and multi platform alternative to MS Money. Just because its popularity in other languages is grater them in English, isn’t a reason to remove it from English idiom articles (the idea is that with the English article on wikipedia users that speak others languages in witch GFP is more used can write their idiom translation).
* 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)
And there are other similar software topics on wikipedia see, some of then not so expressive:
::You note that you believe I am connected with the PDMA organisation which is untrue . ] 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/JGnash
:: 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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/Buddi
for example.
Many softwares that run on Linux are release 0 is just a matter of version control discipline; when the developer advice the user that the system will be more complex when reach the 1.0 release that will be considered full featured. There are others similar OpenSource software that are 1.0 relase but haven't all features that GFP has.


== Proab ==
Hi JzG, I have only one more thing to say, GFP web site was ranked as one of the 7 best sites for "Personal Finance Manager" according to search engines result, as you can see here: http://www.best7sites.com/finance/finance7/Personal%20Finance%20Manager/index.htm?k=personal%20finance
Hi JzG,
==Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg==
I hope you realize that you are endorsing a bad faith deletion here. The only reason why it was nominated was because ] couldn't find anything to revert in the ]. He was following around my every edit and he couldn't find anything to revert in that article. ] 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
: I couldn't give a toss about your personal fight. <b>]</b> 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not my personal fight. This is about what you're doing. By endorsing the deletion, you're essentially saying it's ok to do bad faith editing. ] 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
: No, by entering the discussion I'm saying it's OK to delete unfree images, and pointing out to you the crucial difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech which applies in this case. <b>]</b> 00:18, 10 November 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)
Not when it was a bad faith nomination. ] 00:20, 10 November 2006 (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. --] 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
: No, that's an appeal to motives, a ]. You need to defend the image at ] by reference to policy. This you have not done, other than to assert that in your opinion press pack images are free, which is false in the sense that the word "free" is used in respect of images in Misplaced Pages. <b>]</b> 00:29, 10 November 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)
You want a policy. He's violated ] policy. It's impossible for me to think this way of him. ] 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
: That policy says nothing about images. The discussion is about the image. <b>]</b> 08:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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


:::::::: Ye,s it is ArbCom's business, and they can make the call. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I don't mean to imply bad faith, but I was wondering what research you did on the two above pieces before nominating them for deletion. Anything beyond counting Google hits? I ask because Albedo is very well known -- I knew of it, and I'm not even a furry fan, just a comic book fan -- and Tapestries, while admittedly harder to source due to its theme, likewise seems to be very well-known, at least among its audience and their detractors. There also seem to be quite a few "furry"-related deletions proposed within the last day or so. Some of them, like the hyper-thing, rightfully so, I'd say, but the nomination of a handful of apparently quite popular and well-known entities like these two and ] strikes me as an odd coincidence. Did anything in particular happen to draw your attention to these articles.


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)
I apologize if this seems confrontational; it's not meant to be -- those are honest questions -- but it seems I'm too poor a writer to phrase them in a better manner, at least at 6 AM. ] 10:59, 10 November 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)
: I read around a bit, although I freely admit that I have trouble telling good from bad when it comes to furrydom. I was going through the furry category looking for junk, since I found several of highly questionable merit as a result of the WikiFur DRV. I don't have a problem being proved wrong (a crap article can be improved or deleted, either way is good for the project). Do you really think, though, that Albedo deserves ''three'' articles? Essentially I am suspicious of walled gardens. Articles whose significance is established only in respect of other articles which refer back to them tend to be the mark of excessive zeal on the part of a particular group of enthusiasts, and when (as with these) they are all unreferenced, we have a problem that needs fixing. Adding good sources is always welcome :-) <b>]</b> 11:29, 10 November 2006 (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)
::Ah, that does explain a lot. Not sure about the related articles, but I think Albedo definitely does. The rest, I'm having more trouble with, as I'm not that familiar with them myself -- learned more than I ever thought I'd want to know during the last day or two, though. :p Don't want to be seen as attacking you, because I've done the same thing, going through a category. Of course, the last time I did that, it was schools. Ouch. ] 11:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


::: Ah. Yes, I can see how that might have been... educational. <b>]</b> 12:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) : I'm happy to take your word on that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


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


== Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO) ==
Greetings,


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.
], now a redirect to ], has history and previously housed early version of the article before the author cut-and-pasted it to the properly capitalised version. There is a single author before the cut-and-paste. Does that warrant the effort of history merging?
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 ... ==
In addition, one of ] and ] can be deleted as they are redundant. --] 18:34, 10 November 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-->


==Motorized Bicycles==
* Damn a band article I can't delete. Done. <b>]</b> 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help pruning the external links on the ] page! Your help is very... helpful! ] 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


==Since you were wondering...==
==Arb Com==
...this is typical behaviour of this user when interacting with others, as summarized ]. ] 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Guy, I decided to go for it too. Thanks for the encouragement. I figure the more the merrier. ] 00:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:Ah, great! You'll get my vote. You should be a shoo-in, I think. <b>]</b> 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


== Republic Magazine deletion ==
== GoodCop ==


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.)
Hello there -- I noticed that you've commented on the blocking of GoodCop. The alleged reason is legal threats, but I really don't see any. Mind pointing them out? ]] 07:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
: Repeated allegations of libel <b>]</b> 09:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


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.
== Wii Startup Disc ==


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)
I noticed that you voted for delete on the ] of ]. ] has provided us with the following information: "In the new IGN Weekly (IGN Weekly Holiday 06), they have the final Wii box and take everything in it out. There was no startup disc there (they also re-confirm that Wii Sports will just come in the same cheap cardboard that Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt came in)." Please consider changing your vote to redirect, as this disc does not exist, and people may search for it and need a redirect. A consensus for this issue would be excellent. ] 07:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
: This is nonsense. People won't come to Misplaced Pages looking for a startup disc if there isn't one in the box, they'll go to the manufacturer or RTFM. I wonder if we have an article on the Windows XP boot CD? <b>]</b> 09:06, 11 November 2006 (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)
== RFC on Mattisse (me) re Starwood & Rosencomet ==


== Why the reverts and re-reverts? ==
I have just received notification that a ] has been opened against my behavior regarding articles related to ] and ]. ] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> suggested your name as a person who might be willing to make a comment on it. So I am bringing this RFC to you attention Thank you! ]] 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Eeeek. Whats going on, Guy? ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
: Was kinda wondering too ... - ] ] 08:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
* Lack of Clue - I went to revert titface's edits and clicked your contribs by mistake. Half asleep. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Heh! I know what that's like. 1:30am here and I'm stuck in work. Get some sleep, the two of you! :) - ] ] 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::: 09:29 here, and into the second cup of coffee - I'll be awake Real Soon Now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: Ha ha. No worries. I just thought for a moment the troll had cloned your account somehow and was carrying on his revert spree. At this time of night anything seems possible! ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


== BIG Daddy M ==
==]==


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)
Hello sir:
* 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)


This is to notify you that this article is up for deletion again. I reviewed its records, and I have noticed that you took the unprecedented action of taking it to DRV to have it deleted. You may want to chime in again, but as things go, even to this newbie it seems futile. ] 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


==One subjects oneself to somewhat random questions when one stands for ArbCom elections==
Hi JzG,


==Merge==
I was somewhat surprised at your stated disatisfaction with "Requests for Adminship" process. Could you suggest one or two RfAs of "worthy" rejected candidates? I don't think the process is perfect: it certainly creates more stress in a candidate's life than it should; however, I think cases of the "wrong outcome" are really quite rare, and I'd like to see what examples underlie your unhappiness. Best wishes, ] 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
: Thanks for asking, I have added the response to ], along with the original question. <b>]</b> 23:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:Okay. I certainly agree that Jeff got short-shrift (and Kappa before him, in the single most mean-spirited RfA ever.) Hostility arising from legitimate wiki-philosophical differences is a sad thing to see on an RfA, I agree. I have absolutely no idea how to address that problem, however. Actually, as I consider the question, it's quite depressing that this kind of difficulty is more likely to afflict an intellectual candidate, who has taken the time to think deeply about wiki-issues. Thanks for the insight. Best wishes, ] 03:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


==clarification== == OTRS Question ==
In your reply to my question, you said "...articles on views which are dismissed or refuted by the scientific consensus are treated in a way which , while it provides full information about the subject (provided it is verifiable '''from neutral sources''' of course) leaves te reader aware of the extent of its acceptance or lack thereof..." (emphasis added).


I noticed you made a deletion related to ]. Didn't know if you wanted to reply to it or not. Just a heads up more than anything. Have a great day. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>]'''</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</em>
Do you really mean that sources must themselves be ''neutral'' to be used? If so, is this only a requirement when presenting minority views in opposition to a scientific consensus? Certainly many articles (particularly on controversial topics) employ non-neutral sources, and rightly so (for example, it takes a pretty tortured definition of neutral to say that more than a small portion of the sources, representing either side, in the intelligent design article are neutral, but they are used in a way that comes pretty close to an NPOV presentation).--] 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
* 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)
: You are quite right, my answer was ambiguous. Thank you, I have clarified it at ]. <b>]</b> 20:34, 12 November 2006 (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>]]&nbsp;<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)


== RfA thanks == == Great work, keep it up ==


{| style="border:3px solid black; background-color: orange; padding:5px;" align=center {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|]
|rowspan="2" |
|Hi Guy, and thanks very much for your support during my ], which succeeded with a final tally of '''64/0/0'''. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as a expand my participation on Misplaced Pages. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please ]. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --] <sup>(])</sup> 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
|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 ==
==]==
Some created a RFAr against you and didn't bother informing you of it. So I guess I am officially notifying you of it. ''semper fi'' — ] 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:Never mind, the user and case was reverted :) ''semper fi'' — ] 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:: A strange one, that. I suggested he go to dispute resolution rather than edit warring and posting complaints to ], and for that he files an ArbCom case against me? Seems like maybe he's not here to build an encyclopaedia. <b>]</b> 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


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


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)
You seem to be wise in the ways of DRV, so I thought I'd ask you this. If I undelete ] (the subject of the discussion ]), notify everyone who's seemed interested on their talk page, slap a {{tl|Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag on it and start up the standard discussion on the talk page of the image, leaving a note on DRV saying "the party is ''that'' way", will anything particularly unpleasant happen to me? I ask because I recall hearing that DRV is home to some particularly dangerous varieties of man-eating proceduralism, and I am generally fond of not being devoured. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:No, I think that's perfectly reasonable. Well, OK, people ''might'' bitch but in this case I think it's a fair use of ]. <b>]</b> 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC) * Of course. He's gaming the system and can be ignored. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for the advice. I went ahead and did it. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC) :*That's what I figured. -- ] ] ] 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


== Dalbury's RfA == == 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)
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 03:25, 14 November 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)
== Forocoches ==


==] opened==
Please review my reworking of the ] article proposed for undeletion. ] 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, JzG. The ] in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the ] for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the ] for suggestions.
: A fine job of work (but what does ''forocoches'' mean?). You want it moved back in? <b>]</b> 09:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::''ForoCoches'' means simply "CarForum" in Castilian Spanish (''ForoCarros'' would be the equivalent in Latin American Spanish). The main topic of the portal and forum is automobiles, hence the name; but there is also a large subsection for off-topic discussions. If you think the article is already acceptable for inclusion, then move it back in. ] 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee,<br>
==]==
- ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
<div style="clear:all;">
{| style="background:#def;" cellpadding=0
| ]
| style="text-align:justify; padding:10px; background:#def; font-size:9pt; line-height:12pt;" | Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I ] (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can ] on unsuspecting articles or ] in their defense. The move button has now acquired ], and there's even a feature to ]. With such ] at my fingertips I will try to ] to avoid causing ] and getting into any ]. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be ].
:~ ] 06:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
| ]
|}
</div>


==You're nicked!== == "Usual crap" ==
Do you really think "usual crap" is a civil way to conduct a discussion? ] 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad you liked the ] edit. Shame I messed up the summary with a few typos (you can't preview the damn things). Actually, I would love to know Sgt. Boyden's take on the world's major opera composers. Maybe we could compare his choices with those of June Ackland, DS Burnside and the late lamented "Tosh" Lynes. Then we could create ]. Bound to be one of Misplaced Pages's finest articles. --] 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
* Depends. If it's the owner of a website whose article has been deleted coming up with the usual crap about how if we have an article on Facebook then we should have an article on every single social networking site in the known universe, then yes. Actually if they came here themselves I'd just tell them to fuck off. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


== Your nationality == == 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)


== ] ==
I had no idea you were from the United Kingdom. My respect for you has gone from this:
Is this the sort of thing you were hoping for at ]? If I'm on the right track, i'll continue, if not, please clarify. ] 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
* Anything that replaces the crap with cited and neutral content (read: hopefully dry enough to drive off the whack-jobs but interesting enough to keep anyone who is serious about the subject proper) is good. Please do carry on. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I knocked out 8K of uncited crap, a serious amount of COATRACKing, some areas where there was actual promotion of steroetypes, etc., etc. I'm off for some friday night time, but take a look and let me know what you think, perhaps on the talk page there? ] 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


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


== NYLT ==
to this:


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)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* 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)
Congratulations on this milestone in your adminship!


== Please enlight me ==
(note: each - represents fifteen ]s)--] 12:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
: Heh! I never knew it was a secret. Back when I were a lad we had a controller in an asphalt plant at Sodding Chipbury. Oh how we laughed... <b>]</b> 13:03, 14 November 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...
== Playboy Cyber Club Undeletion attempt ==
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)


==]==
I often argue about my vision of the way things should be because I can see my vision very clearly. In order to gain a proper perspective I have created my vision for you to more fairly assess the question of whether wikipedia would be better with separate ] and/or ] pages. See the template that is of the type I referenced above at ]. I would appreciate your reconsideration of your delete/undelete opinion on this question in light of my creation. ] 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Since ] is now a protected redirect to ], I had the thought that ] might do well as a protected redirect too. I'm checking with you because you were the last admin to deal with it. Whaddaya think? --] 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
* Sorry, I'm still struggling to care. Try writing an article on something that is not trivially available from thirty seconds of Googling? Seriously, I have had it up to here with articles on crap off Teh Internets. This is nothing personal, I'm sure you're a fine editor (some of your articles are just the kind of "wow, I never knew that!" that makes Misplaced Pages great), but the idea of an ''encyclopaedia'' largely made up of articles on trivial porn subjects fills me with apathy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Guy, I appreciate your reply. Unfortunately, claiming apathy after voicing a negative vote where you are 1/3rd of the electorate seems wrong. You are casting 1/3 of the possible votes against undeletion. This is not apathy. If you are struggling to care, I would appreciate it if you were to soften your 1/3 or the electorate affirmation. What I am saying is that I have created several useful templates. ] would be greatly improved if I could get you to ] and allow me to recreate an informative page. Since you realize already that most of what I do eventually takes the form of an informative interesting contribution why don't you ] that I will do so here. Playboy online is a $50 million/year business. It is the fastest growing part of the playboy empire. It is the possibly the future of Playboy. There is a lot that can be written on this subject without plastering porncruft photos of girls who you only feel are notable for having appeared nude for the business. I can do this. Please ] and reverse or at least soften your vote. ] 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
: You misunderstand. It is the ''site'' I don't care about. I think we already have more than enough porncruft without adding to it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, you are saying that because you don't like the porncruft at http://www.playboy.com you don't think wikipedia should have a separate article for Playboy Online. That does not make sense. Do you think we should delete every page that properly addresses a topic you think we have enough of. It is likely you are either a Republican or a Democrat, Pro-Abortion or Right to Life, or on one side of the fence or another on some issue. Would you cast a vote to delete an article describing the other side of the fence? If it were already deleted would you cast a vote to keep it deleted? Help me understand.] 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


: No, it's the fact that I think we already have comprehensive coverage of the Playboy organisation and have no pressing need of more. It would be remarkable if any pornography publisher these days did ''not'' have a website. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. So what you are saying is that although I know that most pages you, ], create are interesting and teach me about things in new ways, wikipedia has a lot of pages for Playboy and I don't think you could effectively teach me anything interesting or in new ways about Playboy that would be properly located in a ] or ] article. ] 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


==Sigrid Lidströmer==
: That is a masterful summary. I believe there is little to be said which is both of merit and cannot be covered in the Playboy article. Of course this is just my opinion. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello. You speedied ], saying that the article did not assert significance.
Of course, I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. Do you feel that it is incorrect for most conglomerate companies to have separate articles for their most important divisions as is the case with most other business conglomerates? ] 22:38, 17 November 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)
: I work for a Fortune 500 company most of whose divisions do not have articles. They are discussed in the main article. This is not a problem. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:Guy, it appears that Hoary's account has been hijacked, as he's arguing for keeping an article. I thought she was the translator? ] 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
::] -- ] 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


''If you feel an admin has done you wrong, try talking to them. Nicely.'' I don't merely "feel" but rather I ''think'' that you did wrong to ], an article that was mediocre, perhaps AfD-worthy, but not obviously speedy-worthy. Niceness is hardly my forte, but I'll try: Please undelete this, and, if you wish, take it to AfD. Thank you. -- ] 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to draft what I think the pages should look like. I concur that there has been excessive porncruft in prior editions of the related pages (]). I now realize that my greatest credential is not my history of interesting contributions as a page creator, but my experience in fighting sportscrufting of fans who wanted their favorite players included in the ] page. You should take a look at the cruft that was on the page before I got involved by editing and setting policy. There had been talk of taking down the page
:Hello again. No reply, so I moved what was in a scratchpad page of the writer to ]. Of course you're free to AfD it, but I think you'll agree that it's hardly speediable. -- ] 12:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
:* She was a translator. She translated some stuff. Some of this stuff had not been translated before. She corresponded with the author of at least some of the stuff she translated. All we need now is a claim of encyclopaedic notability and we're away. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
::*If you think the subject is short on notability, you are of course very free to send the article to AfD. The steps involved are rather tiresome, of course; so as a gesture of amicability or whatever I'll even send it to AfD for you, if you ask me to. -- ] 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


== BLP Issue ==
I still have to add some categories, but the following two pages are as they should be


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)
:]
*
:]
*
:Many of the IPs are his, also. And he refers to himself oddly in the first person plural all of the time, having various excuses for this, "my wife is in the room," and "it's none of your business," being two I vaguely recall.
:] 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, nice, he just made a legal threat. ] 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
==DRV Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg ==
You were invloved in the deletion of the image now being addressed at ]. Please consider participating in that discussion. -- <span style="font-family:Kristen ITC;">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></span> 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. '''<span style="color:red;"><strong>→</strong></span>]<sup>&nbsp;♦&nbsp;]</sup>''' 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I still have some more editing to do to ], but it is getting closer to acceptable given the start I had with ]. I would suggest you note the discussion pages of ] and ]. I think if I can get the same kind of help to narrow things down that I did with five tool player, this can be an effective page.


== Suspicion denied. == == 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)
You recently left this in the schools discussion: ''"I have a sneaking suspicion that none of those who assert "all schools are notable" were born before 1980."''
* 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)


== ] ==
I was most certainly born long before 1980, and I have personal knowledge regarding several of the others who've advocated that view in this debate that indicates otherwise as well.


Actually, a reliable source isn't as necessary when the facts are easily ]. --] 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A backhanded accusation of "everyone who disagrees with me is probably immature" isn't really all that relevant to the debate where you typed it, so I decided to respond here instead. It is a little humorous, because, to be quite frank, I was beginning to suspect that a majority of those who don't see the inherent notability of schools are teenagers or younger. I certainly would not have shared that suspicion without reading yours first, and I commit to pushing that notion out of the logical part of my mind. Hope you'll do the same. ;) ]] 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
* 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)
: It wasn't meant like that. I just feel that maturity lends a certain perspective, and also tends to reduce the tendency to hysterical arm-waving. "All schools are inherently notable" is, frankly, pointless verbiage, since it implies either such a low bar to notability as to make the word meaningless, or parity between all schools, from Dunghill Junior to Winchester. It's an absurd premise. There is a scale of notability, and all subjects lie somewhere along that scale. At some point along that scale we stick a stake in the ground and say that is the level of notability which is worth documenting on Misplaced Pages. The quasi-religious view that all ''foo'' (be they schools, pokemon, ships, micronations or politicians) should be included by virtue of mere existence is utterly destructive of any attempt to rationally debate any given subject. <b>]</b> 19:23, 14 November 2006 (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)
== Hey! ==
* 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)


is uncivil, but let's move beyond that. You seriously think there are no Greek POV-pushers to deal with in WP? If in doubt check my contribs! :-) ] 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
* The "silliness" was in earlier edit summaries and the "nutshell" which had been inverted. I changed it again very shortly afterwards because I did not read that version carefully and it, too, was inverted. As to the "no Greek POV-pushers", clearly I am an evil ] whose sole agenda is to conceal form the world the levels of controversy surrounding Greek issues. <nowiki><cough>Cyprus</cough></nowiki> :o) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
**Ha! I'm that ''rouge user'' ]''] over at ], ], ], ] etc. I also have high connections to the American govt and drive a UFO to go to work. ]! This is your last warning! :-) ] 09:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


== Vopt AfD ==
==]==


Kindly review the responses posted to the ] article ] 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the bold and quite possibly very rash decision to take this to ], as you did months ago. I've cited all the policy I can find, and I'm hoping for the best. I thought you should know. ] 11:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
* 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)
== Enviga ==


* 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)
I removed your tags from this . As it stood it was a heady mix of original research, Editoral comment and well.. chuff. Hopefully you agree that (and there is no other way to describe it) slash and burn brings it upto community standards. --] 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
: Absolutely. Slash and burn is what I would have done if I was not mired in working through the user's contribs and trying to work out which was was up - your version is a ''huge'' improvement! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


== SqueakBox ==
==Frustration! Help!==


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)
I'm totally frustrated by ]. He can't refute the fact that ] blatantly violates policy, and can't come up with a good answer to say that it conforms with policy. He just says that it's already been decided. As I understand it, "consensus" does not override core Wiki policy. Am I wrong about that? Are there exceptions, and should they be noted in the policy pages? ] 12:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
: Jeff is an extreme inclusionist, but he is well aware of policy and he is a perfectly reasonable person. If you can't agree with him then you can agree to differ. Please play the ball, not the man. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, I'll back down. ] 12:53, 15 November 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)
: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)
:: Most of those are Wikifriends of mine, I've not heard from them about it. Regardless, a little patience should pay dividends. He's not some kid, he is a grownup. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps you can ask them then, or perhaps you can take a look at the diffs I provided or, say, ], ]. I'm asking for 10 minutes of your time because I really am genuinely interested in having your thoughts on this. If you read these incidents and conclude that SqueakBox is just a little too enthusiastic about his work and that the problem is the lack of patience from myself, Georgewilliamherbert, Morven, well I guess I want to get advice on how to handle such things, because clearly I can't. ] 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


:I am not obsessed with any subject on wikipedia. We cant have unsourced claims that any living person is a rape victim and I went through the people in that cat on a case by case basis, I certainly made no attempt to depopulate the category as some of the sourced cases where aboslutely left till the cfd passed. I afd'd the NAMBLA article after being asked to do so after being BOLD and redirecting it. ascal, your claim that Sidaway has a problem with me is offensicve and you dont have the evidence to back it up as I have had a good personal relationship with him and we tend to agree on many issues including re possible pedophilia images. This inj itself makes me think you are muck-raking if not actually harrassing me. I dont believe you should handle anything in relation to me, Pascal, as your own behaviour towards me has been far from perfect, eg bringing private emails to my talk page, and even after being warned by El C, being angry that I didnt assume you were an admin when you were not on the admin list nor contactable by meail etc. I have asked for mediation, you are ignoring that request and if this continues an Rfc is probably the only feasible option, and indeed if you want to see me sanctioned arbcom is the only realistic way you willa chieve that. But if you want to leave me alone to get on and edit that would be great. Your campaign against me is anything but, is unwarranted and unwelcome, ] 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
== RFA Thanks ==
: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)
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|blue}}}; background-color: {{{color|#0F8}}};"
!colspan="2" align="center" style=" background-color: #0F3;" | '''Thanks!'''
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" | Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) ], which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
|-
!colspan="2" align="right" | ] 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
|}


==Edith Elura Tilton Penrose==
== Lindsey German Picture ==
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-->
{{article|Lindsey German}}
* If a sourced article establishing notability can be written, just go ahead. The last version was, in its entirety: "'''Edith Elura Tilton Penrose''' (], ] in ] &ndash; October, 1996 in ], ]) was an economist." <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you have been dragged into this (again). I am happy to provide reasons for removing the picture. I have just not bothered to argue with JK because he is not interested in a reasonable discussion. He has only one agenda.


== Blogs as sources ==
JK is a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, an extreme left wing sect that is obsessed with Lindsey German and the Socialist Workers Party. On 2 July 2005 JK travelled up to the Make Poverty History rally in Scotland and proceeded to take dozens of pictures of Lindsey German and her partner John Rees - so many that they thought he must be a police officer until I explained he was part of the CPGB. He then tried to upload the most unflattering pictures to Misplaced Pages. Here is an example of the picture JK has continually tried to upload to the John Rees page on Misplaced Pages;


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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Rees_%28activist%29&diff=33733945&oldid=33732741
* 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)
JK will try and present himself as a disinterested contributor. In reality he hates everything that Lindsey German and John Rees stand for. Hence his obsession with them and hence his obsessional behaviour on their Misplaced Pages pages for the past 18 months. No normal contributor behaves in this way. A single decent and uncontroversial picture is fine for short biographies like John and Lindsey’s and its probably a good rule of thumb to follow generally across Misplaced Pages so far as short biographies are concerned in order to avoid edit wars. {{unsigned|Fashion1}}
::* 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)
:That is an appeal to motives, a logical fallacy (maybe all his pictures are of similar quality, who knows?). I have seen plenty of normal contributors behave in seemingly irrational ways. This is a difference of opinion, and should be settled through ]. I think the picture is fine, it shows her with two other prominent left-wing activists, both of whom have articles, at an important event. I don't think the picture at ] adds anything as it is redundant per the somewhat higher quality picture already in that article, but this picture ''does'' add something and frankly your continued use of the term "vandalism" to describe not only its insertion but also its reinsertion by other editors (including me) is every bit as problematic as what you complain of in JK. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: Trivia is... trivial. Does the article ''really'' need padding? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that the picture he tried to insert on the John Rees biography is redundant. Its also deliberately unflattering. Why would JK pick that picture to post (over and over again) out of all the dozens he took of John Rees on the day? The answer to that question (which you don’t ask) is informative. It is because JK is not interested in adding to the article. JK is interested in trying to post unflattering pictures of people he is obsessed with. He is trying to do the same to the biography of John’s partner Lindsey German. See a pattern here? I am happy to go through whatever procedures are necessary to solve this dispute but I would appreciate it if you did not make threats towards me. My motives are honest, I just want to defence this biography against this obsessional nutter. {{unsigned|Fashion1}}

::: That's your interpretation. In practice I don't know because I have not seen the rest of his pictures. The warning is not anything personal, and neither is blocking you for violating ] - you have been edit-warring and completely ignoring attempts at discussion, that is problematic behaviour. So: take it to a ] process, please, and try to use objective statements in respect of the image itself rather than impute motives to the uploader. Or upload a better picture of German at the rally with some other prominent activists and make the issue moot. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==Build your own==
:{{article|Build your own House and Home}}
I dont understand why you deleted my article on Build your own house and home, i was clearly in the process of editing it. {{unsigned|Rory Deegan}}
: Because it made no assertion of the ] of the subject, and appeared to serve more to ] than to describe it. A quick Google finds 15 unique hits, of which noe appear to be ] for the purposes of ] both the content and its ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What needs to be done to maintain the page? Please excuse my naivety , im rather new.
: Step 1: it needs to be the primary subject of a number of non-trivial treatments in reliable sources independent of the subject. As far as I can tell this is not yet the case. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Its existance is confirmed on medialive.ie where it is documented as homes magazine. ]14:16, 16 November 2006
: Mere existence is insufficient. Per policy, we must be able to verify both the content and the neutrality of the content by reference to reliable independent sources. If no such sources exist, which as far as I can tell they do not here, then we cannot have an article. In short: you need to get famous and then come to Misplaced Pages, not come to Misplaced Pages as part of your attempt to get famous. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Information is available on http://www.ppa.ie/Dyflin.html, this is a press organisation. It is also noted on http://www.medialive.ie/index.html, this is a advertising information website.

: The first is evidence of existence and in any case not independent of the subject, the second is also not truly independent and in any case falls under the heading of trivial, since it is a storefront for selling advertising space (would you believe that a magazine is significant based on its advertising sales brochure?). Please do not re-create it again. Deletion review is ] <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==AN/I==
Would you consider this block request as listed at ? Another admin agreed that a block was in order but looks like it didn't happen. The problems are still continuing. Thanks. ] 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
: No, because the problem seems to be in abeyance right now and the parties are discussing it on Talk, which is reasonable. This is a legitimate, if heated, difference of opinion between editors in good standing and acting in good faith. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== You know when you read a talk page and feel silly... ==

I would just like to note that I feel silly about getting into an edit war over the pic' of ]. What a complete waste of time. Thanks for your level-headed comments.--] 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==Speedied speedy==
LOL! That was the quickest turnaround I ever had on an AfD (]), gone within 15 minutes. Thanks for the quick response. :) --] 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

==ED talk deletion==
I just responded to you, and in doing so, I couldn't resist quoting Empirse Strikes Back. I thought I'd take just a second to be sure I tell you that I'm just a big geek-- I'm not being flippant. In this whole ED mess, I have the easiest role. I'm not a ED troll (i promise!), I don't have a close relationship with anyone who was attacked by them, and I don't have a mop. I get to sit back and be yoda. I hope, in the grand scheme of things, my cautions about the subject help wikipedia, but never let that imply I don't have a definite respect for you who are on the frontlines, as it were. You in particular did something at some point that made me give you a mental thumbs up-- I don't remember what, I need a buddylist on this thing, I can never remember who is who, but somewhere along the way, your name got a possitive association so.. whatever you said or did I agreed with at some point-- thanks! lol. --] 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
: From what you say, I probably quoted Douglas Adams in delete summary or some such :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== ArbCom questions for Paul August ==

Hi Guy. I've ]. Thanks for asking. ] ] 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== Deletion of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case ==

Hi Guy,

Would you consider restoring ]? I've put some comments here: ] with concerns about speedying pages that do not fit a strict definition of "attack page." I think this deletion would be controversial if sent to AfD, and that's a good reason to send it to AfD. My preference, however, would be to fix or stub the article instead. The case is a very important one in the history of Vancouver. People in this city still talk about it. ] 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
: I would have thought a redirect to ] would do the trick, but I have taken it to ] for consideration. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::Perfect, thanks. ] 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== We have a problem. ==

See, small puppies cry when they see the return of that ranty POV pushing version. --] 08:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
: Dear oh dear. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

== solutions ==

I see you are a pro-active consultant in . ] 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he seems to have put aside blue skies thinking, thought outside of the box and proactively provided a leveraged knowledge tranfer of that article. --] 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

==SOCK or MEAT puppet problem==

Hi Guy, I have a problem with two POV pushing users ({{User|Huckleberry1}} and {{User|HappyFun}}) who are white washing critcism from the and POV pushing on the . Judging by the addition of personal facts to the Ryan page i suspect it is a user with close ties to Ryun himself. Campaign staff or possibly even family? I have not escalated this to a vandalism warning yet. I am hovering on 3RR but since I consider these edits to be vandalism, especially the Ryun white wash, i might consider more aggressive talk page interaction. To date, i have not had a peep out of them. Care to give me a second opinion on this? Thanks for your time. ] ] 22:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
: Hmmm. I'd like to give this more time than I have available right now. I have gone with my first instinct, which is to block the two offenders and semiprotect to prevent further sockery. Please be very careful that the articles are ] compliant after the idiocy, I will trust your judgement on that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for the help. I went through and copy edited out anything without a reliable source. We'll see what happens next. ] ] 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, I just wanted to say it would've been nice if you had left a note on my talk page after proposing ] for deletion. :) -- ] ('']'') 13:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks for your support! ==

{| style="background-color: #AABBDD; border:1px solid #AABBDD;"
| ]
| style="background-color: #CCDDEE; padding: 0.5em; font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: 9pt; text-align: justify;"| A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Misplaced Pages as an ] as much as a ]. I am very glad many others ], including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, ] so that I can correct myself. Thanks again for your kind comments, I will try to keep Misplaced Pages free of copyright violations as much as possible! ] 20:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
|}

== Discussion request ==

Since you expressed an opinion on ], I would appreciate it if you could comment on ], in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Misplaced Pages works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (]) 08:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
: I have already made some changes there. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yup, I noticed, thanks for that. Does that imply you mostly agree with the page as written? (]) 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::: I agree with the spirit of it, and most of the text. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== Mr Spunky Toffee ==

Hi there,

I see that ] has been blocked for being a sockpuppet. As I had adopted (]) him - I wonder if you can give me a bit more info/background to put my mind at rest. Thanks ] 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
: This was a self-admitted sockpuppet of ] who is indefinitely blocked by order of the Foundation's lawyer, Brad Patrick, for making death threats. He was on psychogenic medication at the time, but the community is not disposed to even ask for unblocking. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

== Delete UHSA article? ==

Hi,
Is it possible to delete the ] article? Most of the info posted here is wrong and biased. As a current UHSA student, I humbly request it to be deleted. The article is being vandalized by current students (although I'm against that), so it has nothing meaningful to contribute to this encyclopedia. I started the article and never realized it would lead to long lasting edit wars. Thanks.
] 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
: You are free to nominate it for deletion. There are instructions at ]. I can't just nuke it because it does not, to my reading, meet any of our criteria for speedy deletion. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items ==
:: Thanks. ] 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


You created an AfD over an existing archived AfD at ]. Ideally, you should have created ]. I'm not sure where to go from here. I don't know how to split article histories (if that is even possible.) The best bet may be to simply close the AfD, and revert back to the old version, and relist again at the second nom title, and I guess loose those 11 comments. What do you think? Did you purposely start and AfD over the existing archive?-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
::: I need your help again. It appears Leuko doesn't want to delete the article and left a message which I don't understand. The message reads, "rm prod. Instead of requesting deletion with a WP:COI, please provide ] 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: I'll do it. Please edit the AfD to include your reasons for deleting. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:28, 20 November 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)
::::: Thanks again, Guy. I really want to see the end of edit wars, which will never end as long as this article is here. ] 23:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::: If that were a valid reason for deleting, we'd have nuked ] long ago. The article, not the real thing (else I'd have been first with the red button). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


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


== Smile! ==
If someone is using a User page just as a bulletin board for love notes back and forth (no actual article edits) what is the rule on that? Been watching this one a while. Don't know if it should just be ignored. ] 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
: It's a no-no, obviously. I would (and have) delete the user page (which has no meaningful history) and leave a message telling them why it's a problem (they seem not to be aware). If it carries on then lock the page. But actually I don't see any evidence that they were told not to do this. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I wasn't sure. It's not actual vandalism, after all, just an inappropriate use of server space. ] 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Sure, but there is a big difference between using Misplaced Pages for chat in and among edits, and using for playing kissy-kissy. Maybe I'm a bit harsh, who knows. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: Well, seems that your messages and mine are having no effect at all. Not even noticing them, except to remove them. ] 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] '''Hello JzG''', Meateater has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the ] by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small></div><!-- Template:Smile --> ] 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: I think he has something else on his mind :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::: JoshuaZ's tried a 24-hour block. We'll see what happens tomorrow. ] 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::: It then occured to me that a block won't really help so I protected the page. Actually it might make more sense to just protect and not to block. If anyone wants to remove the block on that rationale feel free. Note that they were also using ] for the same thing. ] 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Protect and no block was what I was going to do next, I'm just dashing out the door though. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Looks like the User page needs protecting, too. Same thing going on there. Clearly, he just doesn't care. ] 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


== Why is 2010 in film protected? ==
==]==
A few weeks ago an article that I had just started working on was nominated for deletion. At that time, I indicated that I had just started working on it. Since you were one of the more critical voices towards this article, I tought I'd seek out your feedback on the current state of the article. Could you go and take a look at it and let me know what you think? What areas still need to be improved? What do you like/don't like? I am still working on the article and know that it needs to be copy edited, so I'm primarily looking for tone/content advice. I'll watch your page for response, but you know I'm serious to come to one of the main critics for advice. ] 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
: It has references, it appears reasonably neutral, it is a good article on this subject, but it is 100% US-centric. Well done for getting it right, though. Sorry for the faint praise, I'm sure it's better than that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, the US centricity is one of my criticisms of the topic too... unfortunately, ALL of the research that I've seen deals with American brats. I haven't found anything dealing with non-American brats... the only thing I've found is that American Brats often find that they have more incommon with brats of other countries than they do with American non-brats. Anyways, thanks for taking a look at it.] 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::: That's partly down to the title - the term military brat is used, as far as I can tell, only in the US, whereas much of what it says about forces children applies to a much wider locus. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::British, Australians, and Canadians also use the term. Brits often use the acronymn "British Regiment Attached Travellers" for their brats, and Michael J Fox (a Canadian) refers to himself as a "Proud Military Brat." So I do know that other countries, where English is the primary language, use the term brat. I tried going back through the article and taking out some of the explicit language linking it to the US.] 16:25, 21 November 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)
==Mega Society "Calling a halt"==
:Because Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Any such assertions are at this point pure speculation. --] 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain your decision to '''call a halt''' a bit more? You mention a conflict of interest, puppets and apparent solicitation. But Chris Cole's conflict of interest was declared, the "puppet" (I presume ]?) has an easily verified existence IRL and what was the evidence for solicitation? Assuming that you do not wish to reconsider (although I hope you will) could you also send me a copy of the article at the point of deletion for further improvement. Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:I support this question - do you really believe that I am a puppet or in a conflict of interest? Moreover I think that a person who started an AfD discussion should not close it (], yes).--] 09:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::They should at least let the AfD run to its natural close, instead of leaving so many questions open. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Thing is, it was deleted and reviewed perfectly correctly, the major argument for keep is form the society's own Internet Officer, and it turns out that the user who created it either is or has a connection to Langham. Add to that the fact that there is only one non-trivial source, and the society is not only tiny but of absolutely no evident influence, and you have a pressing problem for ] and ]. I should simply have deleted it in the first place. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:01, 12 February 2023

de:Benutzer Diskussion:JzG

JzG essay

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Regarding deletions...

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

Oops

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

Joy, joy, joy!!!

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

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

Finished your redux for you

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

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

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

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

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

A personal attack targeting you

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

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

Sectarian Movement

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

The THF thing

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

You don't know me but...

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

Welcome back

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

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

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


fring

hi there

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

Welcome back.

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

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

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

Well

Hi,

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

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

Welcome back

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

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

Thank you

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

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

ArbCom

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

Possible BLP issue

An AfD was put up by a relatively new contributor, Ontheveldt (talk · contribs · logs), as his 3rd contribution to en.Misplaced Pages. His second contribution to Misplaced Pages was to create the category, People from Middletown, Ohio, Dr Jan Adams' hometown. However, instead of immediately adding Dr Jan Adams to this category, he immediately nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion. I suspect this is personal between Ontheveldt and Dr Jan Adams, however, I'm on wiki-break, and if you or someone watching your talk page, would monitor this situation if something more develops, I would appreciate it? Yes, yes, I know everyone is thinking, "Damn, Ontheveldt is more 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)

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

Another strange article

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

resolved

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

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

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

Admin

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

User:CyclePat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proms

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

Non-help on help page

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

Welcome back

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

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

Gastrich's latest petition

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

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


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

PDMA

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

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

Proab

Hi JzG,

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

I am waiting for your response JzG. Please discuss it in the talk page of the relevant page where I opened a section explaining my edit. --Aminz 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and you've been waiting for a whole 20 minutes at 8:30am my local time, which time I spent getting ready for work. The issue is not "addressed", it is a notice of an arbitration enforcement. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
JzG, you blocked Proab because you wanted for people to see his personal identity for 24 hours. "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". You even opposed its archival. even after the issue was discussed by Arbcom members and Morven wrote a summary of the discussion. I'll leave the issue. The notice is there. Enjoy it! --Aminz 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have looked into it more since then. The original thing that was removed was a complaint with diffs and links that was problematic. Morven's notice was a factual statement with no external links. If people have a problem with this then they need to take it up with the arbitrators. I am not comfortable with multiply-blocked edit warriors removing this or any other arbitration notice. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. I archived it because the case was brought to the attention of the committee and as a result Proab was placed on probation. That's it. The rest is your desire for "people to see it". To let them know of the personal identity of a 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)
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)

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

Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO)

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

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

Hampl, Punto, Leutgeb ...

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

Motorized Bicycles

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

Since you were wondering...

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

Republic Magazine deletion

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

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

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

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

Why the reverts and re-reverts?

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

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

BIG Daddy M

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

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


Merge

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

OTRS Question

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

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

Great work, keep it up

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

Thanks for RfA support and a question

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

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

User:Edgarde/IPC

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

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

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

"Usual crap"

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

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

Larry Craig

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

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

Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians

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

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

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

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

NYLT

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

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

Please enlight me

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

Angry Nintendo Nerd

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


Sigrid Lidströmer

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

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

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

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

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

BLP Issue

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

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

DRV Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg

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

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

Chrome (XM)

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

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

MediaDefender

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

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

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


Vopt AfD

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

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

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

SqueakBox

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

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

Edith Elura Tilton Penrose

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

Blogs as sources

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items

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

Clue help neded

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

Smile!

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

Meateater 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is 2010 in film protected?

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

Because Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Any such assertions are at this point pure speculation. --Orange Mike 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)