Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:15, 16 March 2010

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.

What's going on?

Hi JzG, is everything alright? –Juliancolton |  19:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have allowed the abject stupidity of fools who insist on including POV text in the first sentence of an article to distract me from the truly wonderful music I am supposed to be learning. I have also discovered that in today's Misplaced Pages a six-hour-old 3RR report with no prior attempt to remind someone of the fact they are getting carried away is still grounds for a block even when the chances of another revert are zero. Other than by the people who insist on including the POV text, of course. I think that about sums it up. So, I'm pissed off with this place, I've had it up to here with POV warriors and above all I'm very annoyed wiht myself for being drawn into disputes about which I don't actually give a toss when I should be learning Bach and Monteverdi. So I've been doing that instead, and it's not got any easier as a result of hours wasted trying to control those fools. Er, yes, that's about it. Thanks, though, nice to see a friendly face on here for a change. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear that, although I understand your frustration. Is there anything I can do to help? –Juliancolton |  21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Banninate anyone with more than 20 edits to Gibraltar or Falkland Islands and less than a thousand edits to other articles completely unrelated to British dependent territories? I suspect it would make the world a better place. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• The nuclear option is oftentimes the best option, old friend.  RasputinAXP  02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The lack of the most basic of courtesies before blocking is one example of worst kind of incivility among our admin "elite". The way blocks are abused is unsettling and the people who carry them out have often become drunk with power so they're completely out of touch with common sense and decency. If they were on the receiving end they would most certainly feel differently. The lack of collegiality is at the core of the vicious atmosphere here, and some contact and discussion should always be engaged in before blocks are carried out. They are meant to be a last resort not a button that's fun to push. If something is already reverted and there's no indication that any offending behavior will continue, then a block serves only as an abusive and punitive measure of humiliation. And if it hasn't been reverted, then a polite request to do so should be the first step. Similarly with incivility, an opportunity to refactor or clarify should always be given first and discussion engaged to reach a consensus on why the comments are inappropriate and how they could have been expressed differently. But the chimps running this place wouldn't know kind a word and a handshake from a pile of poop in their lap. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article here. The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Do you know who TungstenCarbide XIII is? They seem to know you, but I see very little editing from this account. And they've posted info about Giano, so seem to have indepth knowledge of Misplaced Pages, so it seems that they are an editor with another account... your thoughts? (suggestion: let me deal with this, don't do any admin action - I just want your opinion). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

cmt

User:Seregain attempting to flood AFD

Hi. See here. Seregain recently commented on User:American Eagle (another fundamentalist Christian editor)'s talk page informing him about the AFD on The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Shortly after, American Eagle showed up to cast a delete vote, along with User:Hellbus, apparently yet another fundamentalist Christian (both Hellbus and American Eagle are Eagle Scouts, for example).

In addition, Seregain added a link on his userpage to the AFD along with a rant about the article on Tracy Goode (Christian actor) being deleted earlier. The interesting part is that the AFD for Tracy Goode was flooded by evangelical spammers using IPs and SPAs.in an attempt to stack it with keep votes.

I have no direct evidence that Seregain or the others were responsible for the vote stacking in the Tracy Goode AFD (just suspicion), but Seregain is clearly engaged in vote stacking this time. Just a heads up.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Found another one, User:Invmog (Evidence).--SuaveArt (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt, you are again assuming bad faith, and again, you are incorrect. Please look at the timestamps on my talk page and on the AfD. He posted the message on my talk page at 04:47, 24 January 2010, but I had already commented on the AfD at 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC). I !voted to delete the article simply because of lack of notability and sourcing, which several other users noted as well. Please stop running around WP:ABFing to everyone. It is highly disruptive and will get you blocked/banned again. American Eagle (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Welcome to the Gibraltar article. I used to edit it once, until I realised that life is too short to waste your time arguing with someone who thinks living there qualifies him to edit the article and not living there disqualifies you. You think this is bad? Try having a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks that "British Overseas Territory" was superceded by "UK Overseas Territory" or that the Gibraltar Pound is a "mythical" currency . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable discussions are nice, but I too am unhappy about the POV warriors in the Gibraltar article. I have gone through a fairly comprehensive review of the arguments for one specific phrase and am still producing no change to the more entrenched positions. Which include far too much opposition based on perceived/attributed motives, rather than the approach required to write a good encyclopedia. Guy, I realize that you are nurturing hurt feelings, but I feel that we need an administrator to look at the current process and comment/act as required. You have already given up time to this article, but if you can either intervene once more, or suggest another suitable administrator to leap into the lion's den, this may be helpful. This diff may be relevant. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

. Feel free to undo if you'd rather keep it. Cheers. MastCell  00:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gib

First of all, I want to thank-you-very-much (with lots of emphatic body language) for letting some fresh air into the Gib article.

Secondly, I want to apologise for having something to do in your entering the Gib article. I reckon it's not a beautiful experience, and it can kind of affect one's emotional well being, as you have already experienced. Don't worry, it happens to everyone (ask self-imposed exilee Red Hat...)

I hope the bad experience does not lead you definitely away from the discussion, although if it did I would find it completely understandable... Thanks again. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano

It appears that the conversation at incivility blocks is now being derailed. This is largely because Giano isn't happy he was mentioned without him being there to defend himself, and to be honest I don't really blame him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not that annoyed, I'm just upset that the conversation got derailed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Giano is Giano. You have to work out how to do what you want to do without ending up butting heads with him. Sounds like that did not work too well, I can't say I'm surprised, you're not the first to try and I'm sure you'll not be the last. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM Arb thing

I am very pushed for time but thought your summary at the CoM thing was pretty accurate. I cannot remember what formula to use where, can I add "other users endorsing this summary" on that page or is it not allowed? --BozMo talk 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

perhaps

Perhaps the lesson is that readers of the enWP pay insufficient attention to Italian politics, the typical anglophone insularity. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh yes, the WP community can be unbelievably insular - but I guess that's not unique, we are a Fortune 500 company with a global presence and have "global agreements" with key suppliers that have no SLA outside the USA. I remember the arguments over St Albans School, where I had trouble getting people to accept that the dab page should be at the main title rather than the school in Washington, DC. "But look at the congressional staffers who went to the DC school!" they cried. "I'll see your congressional staffers and raise you a Pope" said I... Oh, and Stephen Hawking. According to the local paper St Albans School (Hertfordshire) should be rather well off, having an outstanding debt on a loan of £1000 to the City dating back to 1772. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

AGF

I have to say I'd not have AGF'd Fiorano Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after what is I think nine previous deletions, around 20 sockpuppets and blacklisting of the domain for relentless spamming (e.g. see User_talk:Fioranoweb). Guy (Help!) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My stores of good faith are no doubt excessive. Feel free to take any valid actions with regard to the page. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No need, that would be vindictive (I hate spammers). I was just surprised that you'd done this. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy

As you commented on the ANI thread, I have narrowed discussion to an support/oppose section, so if you could please post whether it is one way or another there, it would make things easier.— Dædαlus 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Doret

Help. The Michael Doret article got userfied to User:Sdazet. It's now been moved back to article space, but the User's Talk page was moved along with it as the article's Talk page, when it isn't. Can you fix this? In addition, the User's User page and User Talk page redirect to the article. Woogee (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• You can use {{db-r2}} on the user page, I guess. I am struggling to assume good faith on this one, the text is so overtly promotional. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I just did a page move for the Talk page and then put a db-redir on the article Talk page. Woogee (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, what's all that mess at the top of this page? Woogee (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Amusing

FWIW, check the dates of their first logged edits. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Julie Estelle

I've deprodded it previously, did you not check? When you state "no independent reliable sources", did you not notice the reference from the The Jakarta Post in the article? Do try to make at least some effort before reaching for the delete button. Fences&Windows 12:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Jakarta Post is not biographical, neither are the other sources, other than the (unreliable) IMDB. I strongly believe that we should not be teasing biographies out of news coverage. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Then you're in a minority, as using substantial news coverage to create stub biographies is standard (whereas using solely passing mentions to weave together an article is dodgy). Are you proposing that only people for whom a formal biography has been published should have Misplaced Pages articles? That's a very restrictive criterion. You can always take such an article to AfD, but remember that prod is only for non-controversial deletions, and that even the new proposed BLP Prod wouldn't have applied to that article. Fences&Windows 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quite possibly, but that's my view. According to our core policies I do not think we should ever be the first place to publish a formal biography of someone. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can understand your view on this even if I feel it errs too far on the side of caution, but how does it stem from our core policies? I've not seen anything in WP:V or WP:BLP to suggest this. What am I missing? Fences&Windows 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Control4

I've restored the above page at the creator's request. Feel free to AfD if you see fit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ciklum

Hello JzG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ciklum, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. GedUK  20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Qattusu

Can you please look over the last contributions. The bad faith assumptions and arttacks are continuing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please report this at the noticeboards, it's not something I can fix. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the opinion you were admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

Please don't. Can't you at least wait until the RfC is over before removing the banner from articles? The editors of Jodie Foster have had that banner there for years now, so WP:CONSENSUS would indicate it should stay - removing it now is just going to add fuel to the current RfC and won't help the Jodie Foster article, the Johnny Weir article, or the encyclopedia in any way. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Lots of RfCs with the WikiProject votestacking at every turn is a really really bad way of handling this - a pile-on of the LGBT project is not "consensus" and consensus can't trump foundational policy anyway. I made a proposal on AN. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that the WikiProject is votestacking is funny. I think there are about five active editors that are members of the LGBT project at the moment. Yes, all of them have participated in the discussion. Boy, that's going to sway things :)

I'm really hoping the current RfC will come to some consensus. And I value your participation in it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects fall into two basic categories: those which collect people editing common articles (milhist, geographical) and those which collect people with a common POV (LGBT, religions). Some of the religion projects include a few non-adherents who join to ensure the coverage is neutral. Fortunately we have relatively few anti-gay activists, so the LGBT project is basically a group of gay activists. It will have followers as well as members, this group is more likely to include those with a different POV but is still almost certainly dominated by the LGBT POV. Now put yourself in the position of someone who is dogged by, and persistently refuses to be drawn into, speculation about their sexuality. What's it going to feel liek to know your Misplaced Pages article is now part of the LGBT project? Feel good? No. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? If I refuse to talk about my sexuality, then I feel bad that a group of LGBT editors are interested in my article? That assumes that being labeled as gay is a bad thing. And that begs three questions:

a) How does the subject "feeling bad" about something affect Misplaced Pages's actions? We have thousands of instances of articles that have stuff the subject of the article doesn't want to discuss - Larry Craig sex scandal, for instance. Misplaced Pages has policies for such things - WP:WELLKNOWN. If the content has multiple reliable sources discussing the content, Misplaced Pages should simply document what the sources say.

b) How does an article being "of interest" to a WikiProject WP:HARM the subject in any way? It doesn't label the person as *being* LGBT, it simply says the subject is "of interest".

c) Your comments imply (if not state outright) that WP:LGBT editors cannot be trusted to edit articles with a neutral point of view. That doesn't WP:AGF, and that tars a specific set of editors as undesirable. It's simply unacceptable to say that because a group of editors belong to a certain WikiProject, they're going to be detrimental to Misplaced Pages. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The fact that he refuses to comment indicates that the speculation is unwelcome. Adding a tag related to the speculation is not going to be welcome either. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. There has not only been speculation from multiple reliable sources, but there have been news articles on how that speculation (and Weir's reluctance to talk about his sexuality) reflect on sports and on culture in general. Are you saying that the subject's wishes override WP:WELLKNOWN? I fully support well-balanced and not WP:UNDUE content within the article, but to claim that the WikiProject banner shouldn't be on the talk page harms the article, the ability and utility of WikiProjects, and Misplaced Pages itself. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not going to agree on this. Probably best to stop before I get wound up. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Do you think the other Rockband song lists should also go? I'm willing to nominate them if that is the case. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. I think the whole lot are irredeemable junk. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's getting rather socky over there, with an IP signing for a user. I predict some more will appear soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was right, we have another. If I do open an SPI later on today, feel free to comment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

If you have concerns regarding Sockpuppetry, I would recommend you include other established editors in the discussions. These "behind the scenes" investigations seem to fly in the face of WP:AGF. Especially when the AFD itself is built on arguments questioning the motives and overall validity of the original decision. -- TRTX 06:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're on about. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed - it's good practice to mention the sockpuppetry case in the AfD so that all editors can contribute evidence. --Teancum (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep dropping hints, eventually I'll work out what you're on about. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)\

What I'm "on" about is that part of your argument in favor of the Rock Band AFD is that there were a number of poor arguments made and that the initial discussion was treated like a poll rather than a discussion. And it seems to go against the nature of the discussion to go "behind the backs" of those taking part in the AFD and running investigations on them for sockpuppetry without letting others in the discussion know you have those concerns. If you think there may be sockpuppetry, don't be coy about it. Bring it up in the AFD so that both sides of the discussion can ensure that the AFD's discussion can have some measure of integrity. -- TRTX 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you completely made up the bit about behind the scenes investigations and accusations of sockpuppetry. Fair enough. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Who's making stuff up there, Guy? The concerns were voiced regarding the exchange between you and Kevin above. Thankfully Kevin was much more receptive to my concerns and shared his thoughts regarding his concerns and why he was looking into it. -- TRTX 20:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I am one of Brews strongest supporters, and I think he was dead wrong on Speed of Light. The editors that come to his defense do not do so because they think he is right: Count Iblis also does not think that Brews was right. The reason we come to his defense is because Brews just wasn't ever "disruptive" (in the usual sense of the term) or incivil (in the usual sense of the term)--- his only fault is that he was too loquacious he went on and on and on for months. Being long winded did not use to be a banning offense. He could have been told "keep it short" with essentially the same effect as the topic ban.

The arbcom motion was brought up by an AN/I ArbCom group who feels that they are cleaning up the physics pages by removing disagreements, and who have little appreciation for content-building. These editors happened to on the side I agree with on Speed of Light, but they were wrong on all other pages. Their actions certainly made the climate at the encyclopedia intolerable for knowledgable editors. This is why I stuck my nose in this.Likebox (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but excessive loquacity is disruptive. Sometimes you just have to accept that it's time to STFU. As I say, I have no real opinion on the merits of his edits but I did watch the original arbitration case and I can see that the interminable expositions of his theory were driving people potty. Reframing the restriction in terms of an injunction to drop the stick would be fine by me, but simply ignoring injunctions because you don't like them makes it impossible to control conduct problems on Misplaced Pages. For every Brews O'Hare there are a hundred Truthers, creationists, LaRouchites, Scientologists etc. Arbitration is not a perfect way of handling stuff and is way slower than the peanut gallery would like but it mostly works and (importantly) it's the system we have, so we can't go round picking and choosing which outcomes we'll abide by. The way to fix an arbitration outcome that you think is wrong is by calm discussion with the arbitrators, not by breaching experiments. That's the point I think is being missed here. Brews' supporters have done a singularly poor job of articulating the case for modification of the sanctions, and this is largely down to a tendency to use hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you--- but the essential problem wasn't ever made clear to Brews, except by me, just recently, before filing the appeal. I told him what the problem was. I asked him "if you get unblocked, are you going to fill up physics pages with many K's of redundant loquacious chatty comments?" he said "no--- I see this complaint is valid", and I say "Even if other people are stupid?" He says "I've learned to stop arguing once it is no longer productive". Looking over his recent edits, it seems that this is true, and his behavior in this regard has changed.

I agree that all they had to point him to was "Drop the stick", but the problem is that ArbCom was presented evidence that looked a lot worse than that. Brews was artfully made to look like a crackpot. This is what I was unhappy about. They took a minor misbehavior case that could have been fixed with 10 minutes of lecturing about "keep it brief and on-point, and stop arguing once its hopeless", and instead made a topic-ban which serves nobody's purpose. This is why I asked them to relax the sanctions, but to no avail so far.Likebox (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am 100% sure (from email contact) that Brews did not try to purposefully poke at or test the limits of his topic ban--- he was genuinely shocked that the topic ban applied to general comments on a 3RR discussion. Nobody would have noticed this "violation", if it wasn't for headbomb combing over everything to find something actionable. You don't understand what a pain this is--- he takes the most ordinary comments like "you didn't read the sources and you don't know this" and says "You are violating WP:CIVIL by calling me stupid". It's that kind of nonsense times 100. So Brews violated his topic ban in a miniscule way accidentally. His ban has already been relaxed several times, the right thing to do is to tell him "Hey--- redact that--- it violates your ban!" The wrong thing to do is block him for a week.Likebox (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) unclear.Likebox (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The way to fix that is to persuade all the hysterics to bugger off and do something more useful, and sit down to discuss it calmly with the arbitrators. Send email to arbcom-l asking the best way to do it if you can't work out a way of handling it otherwise. But I have to say that I don't see Brews being artfully made to look anything, I see him engaging in argumentum ad nauseam and thus becoming his own worst enemy. That said, my point from the outset is not about the rightness or wrongness of the case it's about what works and what doesn't work. In my (fairly long by now) experience of Misplaced Pages disputes the route of grandiose assertions of widespread abuse, corruption and failure of the entire project is a well-trodden path to nowhere. I can't recall a single case where it has worked. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, My intervention in the case was ultimately for the purpose of getting Brews to drop the stick. I knew nothing about the details until I began querying Brews on his talk page on 1st August 2009. But when I did investigate the matter, I came to the conclusion that he had a perfectly legitimate point. I was never exactly sure how he wanted to write it up in the main article, but I spent a few days on the talk pages trying to at least persuade the other guys that Brews had a subtle point which they hadn't grasped. I tried to persuade the guys who Brews was arguing with to acknowledge that there was an issue that needed to be clarified. By the 19th August, I was pagebanned for my efforts on a charge of soapboxing and fringe physics. That demonstrated how little those guys actually knew about the subject matter. I was then dragged into the ARBCOM case in September and I made good faith evidence submissions in an attempt to calm the situation. I tried to get Cool Hand Luke to see Brews's point of view, but what followed was raw corruption plain and simple. There would have been many reasonable ways to have ended the dispute but ARBCOM clearly weren't interested. A group emerged for the sole purpose of vilifying both myself and Brews ohare, and ARBCOM courted them. David Tombe (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See above. I have no real opinion on the root case, I am simply saying that hysteria is not conducive to resolution. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes being political is a dead end.Likebox (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but being diplomatic rarely is. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone diplomatic should step up to help the scientists! Scientists are trained to be blunt, to never make things sound nicer than they are, to be brutally honest. This is the opposite of diplomacy. Brews was trained in science, as was I, and Count Iblis, and David Tombe taught himself several things. Scientists, by and large, are lousy diplomats (or politicians)Likebox (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not just scientists. Giano is never one to dress things up in pretty words either. But brews' problem was the opposite of being terse, it was being excessively loquacious and never taking "no" for an answer, which is a problem whoever you are. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind ...

Hi JzG,
I hope you don't mind much that I've undone one of your edits; I believe that it would only be seen as a provocation, from their POV, and with Arbcom already deliberating the issue and seeing that the struck retirement template was there before the recent dispute, and not put up to give an incorrect impression, I don't think it's helpful to insist on that template at this point. Let's give Arbcom some time to come to some kind of conclusion first.
Cheers, Amalthea 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar arbitration request

Hello Guy. As suggested at ANI, because you've been involved in trying to resolve this dispute in the past I'm dropping you a courtesy note to let you know I've filed a request for arbitration. All the best, EyeSerene 18:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Format at RfC

May I add Support to your comment here, or will you do it? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Feel free. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done and thanks. It truly is amazing how User:Dbachmann and User:Ludwigs2 can persist in their opposition after losing the previous RfC so resoundingly. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was at Douai Abbey singing the Vespro della Beata Vergine 1610 with sackbuts, cornetts, theorbo and some extremely fine solo performances. Mail has not arrived yet. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7

I removed the CSD A7 tag that you placed on Immersed in Flames as it is specifically not for the albums of artists per Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you would like to chat further on this. -- RP459 /_{Contributions} 23:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up I have PROD'd the article. -- RP459 /_{Contributions} 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it would be patently absurd to interpret the rules as allowing the deletion of unsourced articles on non-notable records by non-notable bands just because we allow the deletion fot he articles on the bands themselves. That would be completely inconsistent. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious

Plan 9 From Outer Space - putting the special into special effects since 1959 - "can you prove it didn't happen?" The ending was so very obviously designed to allow a sequel, I wonder why it never happened? Budget, I guess - it must have cost the equivalent of at least ten crates of soda bottle deposits. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you only just discover the joy of Ed Wood's opus? It's a true classic of horrible science fiction from the '50s. I recommend looking up the RiffTrax for it - it adds to the entertainment value hugely. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I always knew it, but I recently found a DVD on sale for under a fiver and bought it; I was horribly afraid it would be less hilariously terrible than I remembered it from my teenage years but I was surprised and delighted to find that it's every bit as abysmal as I remember, especially the aircraft "flight deck" where the (inaccurate) yokes plainly aren't linked and the use of curtains and plain backdrops to save money. It's a work of genius! Guy (Help!) 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

RFAR

I cannot return to work on Misplaced Pages without the harassment I've undergone from Durova being dealt with. She has friends in high places, and without it being documented, she will simply continue it. Shoemaker's Holiday 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Guy...

You may want to add another = = to your statement, right now it's showing up as a sub-statement to Privatemusings :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Heaven forfend. I fixed it, thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

what does forfend mean? - I'm always happy snuggling up to Guy..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova has never been willing to agree not to interact with me. I have requested that before, only fr her to continue to show up in every thread I was involved with, and ask for it to be shut down. Shoemaker's Holiday 22:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

TLDR

I understand your frustration, but this is inappropriate. I have already mentioned to the user in question about their verbosity. Whether their claims aren't backed up in sources has yet to be established, though even if it were, I'm not sure how one could justify collapsing the conversation without at least a comment saying something to the effect of "well we can't put that in the article without sourcing." — Ƶ§œš¹ 19:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The point was not just that it was excessively verbose but that it's also unusable. You can make that point to him any way you like but those screeds made the talk page too intimidating and unusable for anyone else. Consider making a subpage if you have the stomach for that long discussion. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you had been following along (and I don't blame you for not doing so), you would find that the conversation has recently turned slightly more productive, so it is becoming more "usable." As for subpages, what I've seen done in the past is a fairly quick archiving of overlong conversations, but this is only once they're done. — Ƶ§œš¹ 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction

Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI#Specific question growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI#Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber where I have proposesd that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES 15:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Crop Circles

Please discuss regarding external links for Crop Circles. You explained your removal of the Lucy Pringle site with a question. That section of the article is in need of archived images. I had just articlulated why that site was appropriate prior to you removing it. The external link guidelines stress quality of information and contrary to popular belief do not oppose personal sites. That site managed to stay up for a few days rather than a few hours. So I assume there were less objections to it. - Steve3849 14:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've been pruning it of linkcruft for years. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortened report

Thanks for you comment at ANI regarding my (too) lengthy report on Tome Reedy and Nishidani. I have recast my report and made it much shorter. It's pretty inambiguous and concerns serious problems that further discussion would not help. Since length will now not be a deterant, I hope you or some other admin can now help. Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

86.26.123.197

The Songfacts spammer IP? He really does seem to be contributing in good faith, but doesn't understand why Songfacts is not a RS. Care to straighten this out for me, and maybe blacklist Songfacts in the process? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed ban of disruptive IP editor

Guy, thanks for doing the legwork on the IP editor 99.142.1.101. I've proposed a permanent site ban on this individual; please see WP:AN/I#Enough is enough: proposal to ban 99.142.1.101. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Commentary on Brews ohare motion

"I think the input of people like David Tombe seriously degraded the process and impeded a dispassionate view of the issue." I think we're in perfect agreement on this, and I valued your commentary during the motion. I doubt the same result would have occurred but for the counter-productive advocacy from those purportedly on Brews ohare's side—indeed, it only needed one switched vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But Arbitrators should only take into account relevant facts and relevant testimony. You have an open court system without lawyers were anyone can say anything; there are no lawyers to raise objections to the judge. If this is how the system works on Misplaced Pages (suggestions to change it are fiercely resisted), then you can't blame e.g. David Tombe for speaking his mind freely. Count Iblis (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tombe and co. obfuscated the issue and made Trusilver out to be a crusader in the cause, which I don't believe he was. It was a close call and their input almost certainly materially affected the outcome. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but ideally the system should not work in this way. If, as you say, this happened in this case, we should then not blame David, rather think of how to fix the system. If you have an "open court system", we allow anyone from arguing in any way, but we don't want the outcome of the case to be dependent on irrelevant arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)