Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:48, 6 June 2007

Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me

• JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • archives • privacy policy )

If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.

Terms of Service
By posting on this page you accept the JzG Terms of Service. I endeavour to satisfy good-faith requests to the best of my ability, but if you act like a dick, I will call you a dick. If you act like a troll, I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off. If you want something from me, your best bet is not to demand it on pain of shopping me to ArbCom, because that way is pretty much guaranteed to piss me off to the extent that I will do whatever I can to thwart your plans. 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. I can be provoked, it's not even terribly difficult. You may find, if you provoke me enough, that I will do something I later regret. Only remember, you may regret it more. I am a middle-aged surly bastard who spends his working day wrestling spammers and beating Windows with a stick, but I am capable of seeing good in the most improbable people if they don't go out of their way to make me do otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This user posts using a British sense of humour and does not repress those instantaneous motions of merriment.

Today was an interesting day for me, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. As well as exchanging emails with people spanning pretty much the entire gamut from banned trolls to Jimbo, I had a talk with Danny and another with Jeff Merkey. And you know something? Despite deep-seated differences about many things of pressing importance to the project and its future, the one thing that was never in doubt was that all of us - Jimbo, Danny, Jeff, various admins and several long-standing editors and former admins - want the same thing.

We want to build a credible online encyclopaedia.

We may disagree about how best to do that, what precisely constitutes credible, what should be done to attract the right kinds of people, how ready we should be to kick out the wrong kinds of people, but in the end there is no doubt that success is going to look pretty much the same to all of us, at least from the outside. It's going to look a lot like Misplaced Pages does right now, almost certainly with some form of stable versions (which will be a massive boon in fighting vandalism, perhaps allowing me to get back to writing articles more - this may not be altogether a good thing). It's going to have a many fewer "biographies" of kids who once did something stupid or maybe whose friends did something stupid, many fewer news stories of no lasting historical or societal consequences, a tighter focus on sourcing and good writing.

Hell, even Larry Sanger wants the same thing. Everybody who has been involved with Misplaced Pages in more than a trivial capacity seems to be fundamentally in agreement on the core objective. We have built an online encyclopaedia, we proved that could be done. Step 2 is to make it more credible. Right now it is a curate's egg - parts of it are excellent.

I suspect we all share much the same general view of the enemies of this aim. Trolls. Vandals. Abusers of the project. You can abuse the project in many ways: self-promotion, pursuing your external political or personal agenda, violating the privacy of others, harassment, perpetuating the harassment of others. There are some things it is safe to leave to other sites.

If your aim is the same as mine, then we probably are not going to have a problem getting along. And if we do, it's because we haven't had a talk a bout it. You can send me email. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA

Hi Guy, FYI: I agree with the protection of the AMA page which you recently did. However, I don't agree with Administrators making changes to the page without having a discussion. This is a double standard which shouldn't be tolerated, specially if you consider that making a page "historical" is only a guideline... and we can revive the group by advertising! I have left a message on the two users talk pages in question. --CyclePat 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pat. It's like this: AMA IS DEAD. It is staying dead. It was a liability before it died, and the war over trying to reactivate it is even more pestilential than AMA was. How many times do I have to tell you to drop it? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Guy, I noticed you removed my good faith attempt to have a discussion on the "Misplaced Pages proposal's" page. I was wondering what you consider "disruptive", as stated in your edit, with my request for comments and my proposal? Perhaps you could find a reference for me in the widely accepted guidelines Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing because I can't seem to find anything. Furthermore, I do take offense to the accusation and the comments which where directed towards my mannerism and the presentation of my comments and not the issues within the "verbios" and "long" comment I added to the proposal page. --CyclePat 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pat, how many times do you have to be told to drop if before you listen? Just give me the number, I'll organise the chorus. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Guy, thank you again for response. My understanding is that you are willing to try and show me that there is in fact much support to close down AMA, however I haven't seen this support. If you could please show me (organise) this chorus of support that would probably be sufficient for me "listen". A suggested venue of chorus' could be a Proper MfD, (which someone had actually started (a 3rd one) but it was closed right after) or how about a discussion at the community portal (archived) or an RfC or something that resembles a process (for GOD's sake we're talking about closing AMA which according to all the allegations was the WORST WIKI LAWYERING ASSOCIATION (according to the propaganda out there). Perhaps you have another venue? Surely if it was the worst lawyering association then WHY is it that there was no real lawyering for a proper procedures in closing it down. (except for when I decided to step up). I believe most AMA members worked via email. I also believe that there is just a handful of biased administrators that have decided the community doesn't want AMA anymore. Finally, how about having a discussion on the AMAs talk page where there is more than just 2 lines and comments from the other side saying and repeating "It's dead" (propaganda). Surely, as per WP:CON consensus rules we should be able to have an educated conversation and show that the AMA came to a consensus to close down (and wasn't forced by one person or a 3 - 8 biased administrators that simply didn't like being waved rules and contradicted by the advocates). If you do that I will be happy! You will also be vindicating the idea that AMA was closed down by a bunch of admin's that just "couldn't handle the truth!" Again, if you could do that, I would be very grateful. Thank you. --CyclePat 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see the support I suggest you open your eyes. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Just a heads up. Your recent block of User:Ben-w is being discussed at ANI. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad, i now see you started the thread. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a moment

Doing some recent changes patrolling yesterday (thank god for Firefox tabs), I came across Sports Club, and a long running edit war that both sides would violate a 20RR if there was such a thing. I have a request for page Protection in, but do you think the IP's could use a time out? SirFozzie 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Will Johnson/Shawn Hornbeck

My article in an example of how to Copy Verbatim under the license. How is that inflammatory? The page does not fall under any speedy criteria. Therefore you have no cause to delete it. Wjhonson 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As if you weren't aware of the controversy, ongoing arbcom case, changes to two policies and other brouhaha in respect of trivial biographies. Nice try. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Seeing as you're already "part of the discussion" with those character articles (User:Matthew and Nintendo), would you please explain to User:Henchman 2000 and User:Bowsy that they're only using "consensus is required" to wikilawyer their points? I am happy to discuss with them, but they refuse, and state that the characters are important over and over (ignoring WP:FICT and WP:WAF). All they are doing is bringing back junky, unverifiable, cruft. Their constant bending of the rules to suite them is becoming really annoying. TTN 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a no or are you just busy? If you don't plan on it, can you just reply here so I know to move on to another method? TTN 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Busy right now. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given up on this, I thought that was clear, because, though WP:CON is reccomended it isn't essential and this isn't worth the trouble but I think Henchman really does need to lighten up and stop endlessly warring. Agreed? Bowsy 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Adams

Those edits to the article about the IRA's most disgusting tactic may be helpful to you in the current discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31

Can you indicate why you think NWA Hawaii was written by the subject itself? - Mgm| 08:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS email complaining about other editors changing "his" article. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

I disagree with the deletion. The article was poorly sourced, but the name (without reference to any facts about the person behind the name) is a notable Usenet meme. Is WP:DRV the appropriate venue for comment? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree as well. The article certainly had problems, but Misplaced Pages has had an article on the subject for years, hundreds of good faith edits were in the history, multiple other articles link to it, and it was deleted unilatterally without proper discussion. For those reasons I am therefore restoring the article. I respectfully suggest that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion would be a more proper place for action. Thank you. -- Infrogmation 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I first want to thank you for the long overdue deletion of this article, and for the wisdom of your decision to do so. I would also like to point out that editors are now unfortunately attempting to restore the article and the talk page (which is just as poor as the article itself). Thanks again, and I very much hope that the restoration of the article can be prevented. FNMF 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• So there you have the two poles of opinion :-) And somewhere between lies, perhaps, a compromise. Maybe the two of you can work together to document the phenomenon without actively taking the piss out of someone who, to all external appearances, is mentally ill? I could not see an easy route form there to where we might want to be, so all reasonable suggestions gratefully received. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Knowing what you can and cannot disclose, was the complaint from the subject or something else entirely? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll hazard a guess that he just deleted it because it was a heap of poorly written, poorly referenced rubbish that reflected poorly on Misplaced Pages. Am I right, Guy? --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, he referenced an e-mail. Depending on what the context is, it has a significant impact on how this should be handled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• There's a bit of everything, actually. Email complaints can be from subjects, or they can be from people concerned that an article is an embarrassment (no, I dn't want to share more, for various reasons, thanks for understanding). Yes, it was crap, but we do allow a certain amount of crap as long as it is not insensitive crap - sadly this was insensitive crap. It was insensitive crap referenced a college newspaper which seems to have pulled the story from its servers (which may or may not be significant), and usenet posts; it identified by name and date of birth a living individual who appears to be mocked largely because he is delusional. I am not innocent of such crap myself, having created Mike Corley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) before I knew better and before we had WP:BLP. I am not averse to a debate, but of course we should not go to the extent of putting our dirty washing on a pedestal and then inviting the world to debate how dirty it is; that would not be inkeeping with either the leter or the spirit of policy. I was happy to leave a stub with the history visible and the AfD, or to userfy for complete rewrite, or any one of a number of other creative solutions, as long as we keep the crap out of the immediate public eye while we do it. Because, after all, it does us no harm to give a show of doing the decent thing. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I surely disagree with speedy deletion here, and I will surely support keeping the article should I conclude that the subject is notable (as I am likely to do)—I am, of course, someone who construes BLP quite narrowly, and I wouldn't think it at all to counsel deletion here. Notwithstanding all that, though, some of the concern at AfD revolves around the sources provided for the insensitive crap , to-wit, whether The Dartmouth, which one assumes arguendo to be an other-than-reliable source (again, that's not an assumption I'd necessarily make), is indeed the principle source for the parts of the article to which you or others might object. Although I recognize, then, that you might continue to support deletion or the excision of much material even if more reliably cited to a more prominent source, I wonder if you might care to address Uncle G's submissions (e.g., here) that you misread the article and misstate whence most of the text is sourced. The issue isn't likely to sway the views of those of us (to use broad terms) on the BLP inclusionism side or those of you on the BLP deletionism side, but it might help clarify the relevant issues for others participating in order that a clear consensus might be borne out. Cheers, Joe 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad you deleted the article, Guy. It's disturbing to think that Misplaced Pages could be adding to the distress of an already troubled individual. And he's not so notable that we absolutely need to keep the article at all costs. Having read some of the points made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop, and having seen Jimbo's recent addition to WP:NOT, I'm beginning to wonder about Donna Anthony, which was created and almost exclusively edited by me. There's certainly nothing negative or unsourced, but I'm wondering now if it is memorialising a living individual who only became notable because of a misfortune, and who, in any case, is not terribly, terribly notable. I'd appreciate if you'd take a look and give me your honest opinion as to whether it is intrusive. If an admin wanted to delete it on those grounds, I wouldn't make the slightest protest. ElinorD (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gate-crashing here- I'm wondering if Donna Anthony, Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings should be merged into the article on Sir Roy Meadow, whose flawed testimony apparently sent no fewer than twenty-eight women to prison unjustly. It seems to me he is the notable, or remarkable, individual and all the others have is the sad case that they were unfortunate victims. KillerChihuahua 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sally Clark will have widespread name recognition, nut even then a redirect may be the smart thing. There were some pretty detailed obituaries, though. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Even in Clark's and Meadow's cases we don't have a biography so much as a summary of the legal proceedings with some background stuck on. I think that merging the legal material to, say, Meadow's law—as documentation of the legal controversies surrounding it—and abandoning any pretense at creating real biographies of these individuals may be the neater approach. Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Roy Meadow article is probably a good merge target. The article should probably continue to bear his name, though I could be persuaded otherwise if a better name was suggested. --Tony Sidaway 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy. I have some concerns about the undeletion of Archimedes Plutonium. I realise the page is protected, and it may only be a temporary measure, but I would hate to think this is the first step to the restoration of the article. Just thought I would register my thoughts with you. Thanks again. FNMF 08:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered discussing it with the admin that did the restoration? I am quite sure Guy advocates that approach first... Viridae 09:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that Viridae has now closed the DRV and reopened the AfD. The AfD was, of course, initially opened after your deletion. I confess I do not understand how an AfD opened after a deletion can be a more correct place to review a deletion than a Deletion Review. That this has occurred compounds my concern that this is an attempt to undo the deletion by any means. FNMF 10:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may notice firstly that I didn't re-open the afd. I only closed the DRV because it is ridiculous to 1. discuss the merits of a deletion that hasn't happened properly (Guy himself brought the article to afd, by which time a DRV had been opened (I believe)) 2. have two deletion debates running concurrently. The DRV was turning (as many people pointed out) into another afd, so after the history undeletion had occurred, it is sensible that the discussion continue in the one place - the one that focuses on content, not deletion policy so I closed the DRV, re-added the afd tag on the article page. Secondly, you will notice that I have actually !voted for the deletion of the article on the afd, and I am not about to change my mind on that. I would suggest you remember the wise words at WP:TINC. Viridae 12:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, I apologise for wrongly stating you reopened the AfD. And I do understand the idea that having two debates going at the same time is pointless. If I am wrong to worry about the location of that debate, so much the better. I'm glad you voted to delete. I'm not sure which words you intended to remind me of at WP:TINC. FNMF 12:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The only words I wanted to remind you of were "There is no cabal" in response to "That this has occurred compounds my concern that this is an attempt to undo the deletion by any means.". Just how I took those words - dunno if they were intended that way. Viridae 12:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Just thought I should notify you that it appears that AP has just post this comment on the AP talk page. To me, it is further evidence of why the entry should be deleted. For others, it may intensify their feeling that AP is an attention seeker (and that this somehow legitimates the entry). And I note also that user Arthur Rubin then immediately deleted the comment. To me, the attitude of some editors, that it is fine for AP to be the victim of this entry but that he has no right to object to it, is revealing. Thanks. FNMF 07:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Natalina Mathias

You have put a tag on this article so that it cannot be created. I dont mind but i think that you should not have put siliness as the reason because it is a true article and i just could not get enough information. I am a member of the Lari family as it says in the article

Thanks

Thanks for the block Runewiki777 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Schäfer

I wonder why you made this edit. It could easily be considered vandalism, so I'm reverting it until you give a good explanation (No, "ugh" isn't helpful). ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living individual, and seriosu concerns about the tone and neutrality of the article. Feel free to rebuild from first-rate sources, and remember to attribute all commentary to authoritative sources, also steer clear of trying to persuade people that he is a bastard, because if we write the article properly they will probably be able to work that out for themselves. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a brief note about his arrest, trial and sentencing. It's referenced to the BBC story which carried it, and there's links to a story in the Guardian and Deutsche Welle. The sources are about as authoritative as can be. Nick mallory 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, nothing wrong there. The main problem was tone: it was polemical. Stick to good sources, and work it up bit by bit, I suspect we'll be fine. Let me know if you have trouble with POV-pushers. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I need your opinion

Guy, can you please offer your candid opinion about my recent efforts to discuss verifiability with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey at his talk page? I have been trying in good faith to communicate with him, and I was surprised to see him label my most recent post to his talk page as trolling. I'm not trying to get him in trouble here, just trying to get him to re-think his slamming the door on me. If he has concluded that I'm a troll, then I don't see how any further direct contact by me can be helpful until someone else manages to persuade him that I'm not. Thanks, alanyst 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here to inform you of that exact edit. I don't think Alanyst's edit can be reasonably viewed as trolling - Merkey seems to be using the fact that a few people have harassed him as an excuse to delete legitimate comments he disagrees with as "trolling". You appear to have taken him under your wing, so I'll let you talk to him. --Tango 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, keep calm. I'll go and have a look. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst is a LDS author, and anytime I suggest an addition to Mountain Meadows Massacre or make any comments or edits that challenge the dominion of the Mormon Church, I am bombasted with accusations of lacking understanding, exessive trolling by this user, RFC's along with his like minded LDS authors, and subtle threats to reinsert unreliable materials like the Southern Cherokee Nation. The message is clear, "stay away from our LDS WP:OWN" articles. His trolling is becoming boring and transparent motives are patently apparent to me. I realize these people have some fascination with me because they think I am a "Nephite", but its getting old and fast. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can see how that would be wearing. LDS folks can be painfully sincere, terribly insistent, and utterly unable to perceive their own bias. Which may well not be the case here, I really have not looked, but perhaps the solution is to disengage personally and stick to specifics. Here is my recipe for at least finding out how big the problem is. On the article talk page, each make a short, factual statement of what you think the article should say - or at least your "side"'s perspective. Then see if we can say both, in the form of "LDS say A, but XYZ say B" or vice versa. If you can't quicly reach agreement (without edit warring in the article) call time, and file an article RfC or request mediation. The sooner you do this the less likely it is that the dispute will escalate to blocks. Please try to bury personal animosity, and to be open here I will say that I have serious problmes with the LDS myself so I am not going to get too involved here. Damn, I nearly said call the cavalry, sorry, Jeff, I have to learn not to use that one, it's seriously tactless. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I am still laughing from reading the "Cavalry" comment. Touche Brother! No its ok. I have enormous experiece dealing with LDS people. It's a little easier for me because I have lived in the heart of their empire for 15 years. They come around eventually, but not in any area where it involves compromising on their beliefs. I think I know what to do here. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, Guy. Jeff is right that I'm LDS. All his other assumptions about me stated or implied above are categorically not correct. I think Jeff is letting my religion get in the way of his assuming my good faith intentions. That's unfortunate. I'll avoid turning this into a major dispute, but I'm concerned about this continuing tendency of Jeff's to leap to conclusions about people who honestly disagree with him, based on their affiliation with some group or another. Jeff needs to understand and accept that I have no ulterior motives here, that I am not trying to disrupt his good-faith contributions, and that I am sincerely open to perspectives that differ from my own or from cultural LDS perspectives (which themselves sometimes differ from my personal views). I value the NPOV policy and have done my fair share of reverting or editing other LDS editors' contributions that try to introduce LDS POV into WP articles. Doubtless I have unconscious biases, but I do my best to keep my personal views out of my contributions here. All I've been trying to do recently is to explain verifiability to Jeff. If the messenger is getting in the way of the message, then maybe someone else needs to be the messenger -- but it's a shame that such a thing should hinder my efforts to address small issues like Jeff's understanding of WP policy before they become big problems. alanyst 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but be careful. Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons, that sort of thing, OK? Remember that others can feel as got-at as you can. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. My attempts at "gentle yet candid remonstrance" have probably come across as "haughty chiding". Ah, the deficiencies of remote written communication! Anyhow, thanks again for your time. alanyst 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that Jeff understands all too well the deficiencies of text-only communication. Unless you have great mastery of the language, it generally lacks the nuances available in speech. Alas, few have such mastery. Treat each other with respect, and you should be OK even if you differ on everything. Hopefully, anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I have refrained from interacting with JVM for 24 hours to try and calm things down. Would you take a look at his contributions since then? I have an opinion of them but will not try to bias yours. Thanks, alanyst 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the brave decision

Thanks for blocking Nasz. It's a decision that should have been done months ago. I am afraid to think how much unsourced and biased stuff must be still in some of the articles he worked on. I gave up on him in January (mostly because real world duties pulled me of WP). Do you think a review of some of the articles is worth doing? -Friendly Neighbour 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Donald Neilosn deltion

The deletion of the page is very dubious as no debat on the topic was conducted and very little time between listing and deltion was given. I am now going to request a deletion review of the case.--Lucy-marie 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Warrant

Hi! At the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Black Warrant I added their albums to the discussion as well. Feel free to revert if you should think this was inappropriate. By the way there was a Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pakistani black metal (2nd nomination). Punkmorten 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Imallout1

Hi JzG. I'm afraid I must object to your blocking of this user and your comments on their recreation of ]. I've previously deleted the article incorrectly under CSD G4 but at that time it would have come under A7 anyway. To make up for this error on my part I've offered advice to User:Imallout1 as to in what way the article doesn't meet the guidelines, in particular in not asserting in what way the band is notable to satisfy the criteria at WP:BAND. As a result of these discussions, the user added details of the band winning a competition to play at the Cornerstone '07 music festival in an attempt to satisfy the 9th criteria at WP:BAND, Has won or placed in a major music competition. Whilst I am sceptical about this claim of notability, this can be counted as such a claim and so I don't think it was appropriate for you to delete this under CSD A7.

I think a key aspect of this issue is that there has never been a full AfD discussion to analyse the notability, one AfD was closed following speedy deletion and its my view that this means the article cannot be classed as a reposting in terms of the CSD G4, Recreation of deleted material which requires the article has been deleted as a result of the AfD process which is not the case with this article.

I must make it clear JzG, that I do not disagree that this band is likely to not meet the notability criteria but feel the correct course of action would have been to take this to AfD to determine this once and for all. Regardless of Imallout1's motives in creating the article, we surely must consider the merits of the band before this. I don't feel the indefinite block is justified when the user has made attempts to address the concerns I have raised and seems to have understood that an AfD could determine an article is inappropriate based upon the current information available. I would suggest that the article be undeleted, immediately nominated for deletion via AfD, and the user unblocked to permit then to partake in a full discussion of the bands notability. Regards. Adambro 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is a single-purpose account whose history goes back to November 2006 and consists pretty much exclusively of pushing this band. Many of the edits in respect of the band are blatantly promotional. As soon as the WP:SALT was removed, the editor re-created the article again. They have one released EP. They took part in a competition for new bands, with minor success, but there are still no on-trivial independent sources, we have the usual couple of hundred Googles (most content tracks back to the band's MySpace). Create once, no problem WP:CSD#A7, band vanity, happens all the time. Pursue a campaign of relentless re-creation over several months and at numerous different titles, with no substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia, and you get shown the door. Misplaced Pages is not pitch-till-you-win, and it's not the place to word up your band. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?

For standing up to WP:WPBIO tyranny? Or just for writing the article?

Speaking of which, do you have a source of any of the funny stories about Deller dying in the arms of his French mistress (who later apparently turned up at the funeral, much to the consternation of Mrs Deller). I've always wanted to know if that rumour was true or not. Cheers, Moreschi 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Writing it. I was listening to a programme on Deller on the radio the other day, I checked the article. Amazing man, and vastly influential. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've got several of his recordings - Purcell songs, Dowland, Britten - and I prize them. He sang beautifully. Cheers, Moreschi 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, as far as I can make out he more or less rediscovered Dowland, as a part of the mainstream repertoire. Wonderful songs. I have some myself (but of course I am a baritone). Guy (Help!) 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and then people try to call my lovely summary a stub! <sniffle, sniffle> Moreschi 19:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star (singer)

Do you think there's enough notability in this article to leave him alone, or should this go to AfD as a recreation of a multiply-AfD'd and DRV'd non-notable singer who still doesn't have a record deal? Corvus cornix 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a lot more than there has been recently, and a DRV challenge at this point should be able to keep it around. A better idea would be to incorporate some of those sources and move the article to Jeffree Star at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Balance on The Awareness Center Page

Blau's sourced statement praising TAC belongs in the article. But so do Shafran's and Dratch's sourced criticisms. To delete the criticisms while leaving the praise alone, on a page that, because of protection, you can edit, but I cannot, seems unfair. High-handed, even. David in DC 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• See if you can come up with some sources who don't have a vendetta, eh? Guy (Help!) 06:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Huh? The source is the same for all three quotes. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency/Washington Jewish Week article that is cited for Blau's "pro" quote in the current revision is the exact same source to cite for Dratch's and Shafran's "con" quotes. It's all in the same news article. That news article is balanced, and not a "puff piece". Would that we could say the same about the WK article.

I'm not trying to be willfully dense. I'm genuinely mystified. Why is the JTA/WJW article not a good, balanced source for all three quotes? Neither JTA nor WJW has a vendetta against TAC. They practice mainstream journalism. And how can it possibly be a source with a vendetta as to Dratch and Shafran but a balanced, neutral, WK-compliant source as to Blau. David in DC 20:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Still disruptive

Guy, it's a shame that with massively POV edits such as the creation of Mormon men in black (check deletion log; it got speedily deleted) and Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life or his libel of a local rival (see ), JVM has shown that your leniency is to him merely license to ignore WP policy. What a way to repay your efforts to trust him. alanyst 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Cherokee comment is perfectly reasonable, the LDS comments are not, I will talk to him about them. Although to be fair they are no more POV than the average LDS editor's contributions. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cherokee comment was a concern because JVM stated, as if it were established fact, that the person he was talking about had attempted witness tampering, extortion, and solicitation of murder. That's libel if it's not true. Yet the claim doesn't square with the fact that the person was never charged on such grounds, and the drug charges were eventually dismissed. I don't think murder-for-hire, extortion, or witness tampering would be treated so lightly by federal and state prosecutors; in one sentence JVM claims that the plot was uncovered during the trial and just a couple of diffs later he claims that he was involved in arranging a deal resulting in only a permanent injunction against selling peyote. Can you blame me if I find this farfetched? Aren't such falsehoods disruptive to WP?

Your comment that his edits related to LDS articles are "no more POV than the average LDS editor's contributions" is mind-boggling to me. Your opinion of LDS people must be very poor indeed if that's the case, and it makes me wonder if I'm not swimming upstream here in trying to raise concerns about JVM. Do you mistrust my motives because I'm LDS? Would you be as forgiving of JVM's behavior if he were creating articles on "Anglican teachings about extraterrestrial life" or "Orthodox Jew men in black"? I've approached you with my concerns because you're just ze guy who unblocked JVM, you know? But now it seems like you're inclined to assume bad faith on my part, on little more basis than my religion, and granting JVM the benefit of the doubt despite his lengthy history of bad behavior, threats, disruption, and fanciful claims. I'm absolutely confident your motives are unimpeachable, but do you think you've been consistent in your approach to our conflict? Maybe you think I'm out to troll JVM or something... is that it? I am not attacking JVM personally, just trying to combat his disruptive behavior. Meanwhile, he posts stuff like this. He immediately deleted it, but really, come on now. How much more goodwill does he deserve? alanyst 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, if you have issues with me, stop being passive/agressive with others and confront me directly. As it stands, you appear to prowl around my contribs looking for any reason to nitpick and throw rocks. You know where to find me. Mr. Chapman is very busy on this project with real problems, and should not always have to play baby sitter and mediator with a group of men who know how to act like adults and may not be. Be a man and work this stuff out with me yourself. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you have stated your opinion that "you cannot reason with " and you have asserted that behind my civil demeanor I am waiting to stab you in the back. We cannot have a constructive dialogue on such terms of distrust. alanyst 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I mentioned you by name regarding my analysis of LDS culture as a whole, and if I did, I humbly apologize. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

jeff, it's probably OK for Alan to come here, we want to keept he heat down on your Talk page and I'm trying to encourage engagement on the issues not the personalities. Guy (Help!) 06:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"We know the LDS are kinda creepy..."

Could you please explain/clarify this statement? Is there some reason that this is more acceptable to state here at WP than it would be to substitute LDS with another religious group? Would you think that if someone said "We know the Catholics/Anglicans/Baptists/Jews are kinda creepy..." that this statement would meet WP:CIVIL? Who is the "We" you are speaking about? Are LDS unwelcome here at WP? -- 12.106.111.10 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this was an impartial observartion from someone without any agenda or preconceived views of LDS editors, and based on real world experience from some of the edits he must review. If you object to the chracterization, then perhaps LDS editors should stop posting POV edits and acting creepy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you find something "creepy" with my rewrite of unrighteous dominion, or any of my other recent edits, or was that comment directed at others? -- 12.106.111.10 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't find mormons creepy as I live among them and all my friends are mormons. My views are well known and I know several members of the Presidency very well. My uncle was the administrative assistance of the office of the presidency for over 40 years. No, I don't think mormons are creepy, but a lot of them need to stop drinking the Kool aide all the time and rewriting history. The teachings of mormonism are very similar to the ancient religion of the Ani-kutani, without the element of Christ that is. Mormons should recognized their leaders were fallible human beings and report the history accurately, and embrace and focus on the beliefs, not all the controversy. Perhaps I have been sent to Utah to help LDS People do this in a period of testing? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• LDS are kinda creepy. So are scientologists, fundies and many other religious zealots. Probably including me. Guy (Help!) 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV closing note

Saw a couple of your DRV closures with a double sig, so thought I'd drop you a note about it. The {{drt}} tag automatically adds the closing admin's signature so signing separately isn't required. Cheers --Srikeit 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

This was not trolling, and Doc asserting as such does not make it so. Enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• In whihc case you need to apologise for Doc, because he found it insulting and considered it was trolling. Your repeated statements that anybody who disagrees with you is necessarily in the wrong - denying the possibility that any interpretation other than yours might be valid - is a core part of the problem identified at the arbitration. I suggest you start being a bit less dogmatic. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When Doc bothers to apologise to me, I'll consider it. Hell, you should probably apologise to me for continuing the "anybody who disagrees with you is necessarily in the wrong" meme that's causing a good deal of the problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You can defuse that criticism any time you like. I wil tell you the detailed steps if you need... what's the term? spoonfeeding. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, the criticism can be diffused with a simple use of that Cluestick you're so fond of. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It could indeed. I was trying to avoid having to use it on you, though. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, it's not me that's the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
            • so you keep saying. You don't seem to be persuading many people, though - and I suspect this is because your approach is not just that you are not the problem, but that you are not any part of the problem. And that is a problem. Guy 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't persuade anyone because of the myth. A myth you know full well is untrue, yet you keep pushing anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
                • So you keep saying. That, too, is unpersuasive. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Awareness Center

I agree that it is reasonable for the article to have a criticism section. Avi Shafran, the spokesperson for the Haredi organization Agudath Israel of America, has been included in criticism sections in e.g. Criticism of Conservative Judaism and Women of the Wall, so I don't think there's any serious dispute about the notability of his opinions, and the Jewish Telegraph Agency has been used as a source elsewhere. I don't see a real sourcing issue here. I would, however, definitely remove material that represents potential WP:BLP issues (e.g. opinions about the character of the organization's founder etc.) but other opinions, e.g. those claiming the organization should have higher standards for what it publishes, seem to me legitimate criticism so long as we limit what is included to things that can be legitimately characterized as opinion. I agree factual allegations may present other sourcing issues, but I'm pointing out that a legitimate criticism section can be had consisting solely of opinion by notable opinion pundits. In keeping with the requirement of encyclopedic tone, I believe quotes that state criticisms in a more measured way should be prefered to criticisms containing insults etc., so long as both are by notable individuals. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shirahadasha. JzG would you please re-edit the page, with her thoughtful comments in mind? I cannot. I would if I could. David in DC 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You user page

Per the request on the page, I did my best to clean up the page a bit, removing unnecessary "{{{ }}}"s and arranging the photos to flow better. I also converted from HTML to wiki formatting where it was possible, and updated the userboxes from boxbox to userbox templates. I also rearranged the grouping a little bit and added dividers. If you don't like it, feel free to change it back. Let me know on my talk page what you think. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Cleaner! Thanks a lot. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Could you put the last version before deletion of Vivonet on my userspace somewhere? I got a guy who wants it back, and I wanna see what I can do. Whsitchy 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• It said, in its entirety: Vivonet is a company that was established in 1999 and is based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Vivonet is an Application Service Provider (ASP) that processes transactions for customers in the hospitality and retail sectors across Canada and the United States. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems like it fails WP:NOTE too. Whsitchy 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• And probably WP:VSCA. Be kind, but be firm I think. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm getting "his" version of the page now. Whsitchy 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• This guy is pretty wise, he's actually seeing if he could make it better so it won't be deleted if he does resubmit. Whsitchy 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Liza Shtromberg

Why was the Liza Shtromberg article deleted with no discussion and no chance for debate? She is a famous jewelry designer. The article was structured biographically. There was no link to an external website. It was modeled after the entry for Tarina Tarantino another Los Angeles jewelry designer as well as Harry Winston another famous designer. Her designs have appeared in magazines, in movies and TV, are worn by celebrities, have shown in Paris and New York and are sold round the world.

If Misplaced Pages allows for Tarina Tarantino - a Los Angeles jewelry designer then it follows that they must allow for all serious Los Angeles jewelry designers.

• Needs sources and a less advertorial tone. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Gentlemen of the College

Thanks for the info on the deletion. I have to ask why the The Gentlemen don't merit their own page because of significance. The following groups are given their own articles and they are equal to or less well known than the Gentlemen. Some are also written quite poorly in comparison. They include:

 Harvard Din and Tonics, Cayuga Waiters, MIT/Wellesley Toons, The Stairwells, Manic Optimists, The Octals, Penny Loafers, Princeton Nassoons, Providence College Special Guest, Radcliffe Pitches, Stanford Mendicants.  

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

• That comes under the heading of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The problem is that while most colleges have a plethora of musical and other groups, there is nothing actually encycloapedic about any of the individual groups themselves. I believe a common solution is to have an article on groups withint the college, with short non-promotional descriptions of each. I sing in a choir which was the first to have an Association fo British Choral Directors conducting scholarship bursary and had a two-page spread in the paper the other day, plus press in the German papers when we went to Dusseldorf; still not actually notable, just a generic choral society. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ever thought that you don't know what my opinions are?

Do please try to maintain separation of the people you are arguing with at the BDJ arbcom. You are arguing with me about something that I've never said I disagree with. Just because I overturned some deletions that I thought were improperly conducted does not mean that I think they should stay as they are in Misplaced Pages. If you look at the evidence page you'll see comments by me supporting the mergers. I fully understand the impact this place can have on people, but right now BLP does not cover what some people claim it does. That is what I've been saying, not that we should ignore BLP and have trivial articles on <15 min famers. violet/riga (t) 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• No offence intended, I was assuming that since you appeared to be arguing with my interpretaiton in several places, you disputed it to some extent. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)