User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:11, 19 February 2007

JzG is currently suffering connectivity problems and will not be editing as frequently. ... quoting: "My broadband is playing silly buggers, up and down every few seconds. Outbound email is going eventually (the server at home keeps retrying and gets the messages out after a few dozen retries)." so he WILL get back to you eventually, please do be patient.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-May-2024. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.

Happy New Year!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

To-do

List of episodes for The Nick Cannon Show - dozens of one line articles need merging into the list. Shw cancelled due to low ratings, unlikely that there will ever be sufficient interest to justify articles on every episode.

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article B. B. King, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Thanks for axing my sandbox...

... without even notifying me. [1] Care to point me to the policy that states that you can't work on deleted articles in your userspace? – Lantoka (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a free web host. Deleted articles being worked up, no problem. Deleted articles not being worked on, sometimes an end-run around deletion policy and always fair game for deletion under WP:CSD#G4. Especially when it's been deleted, deleted, deleted again, deleted some more, deleted some more again, reviewed and endorsed, deleted and reviewed again... well, you get the picture. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"G4: Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. This clause does not apply in user space, to content undeleted per undeletion policy, or if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, although in this last case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply."

From WP:USER: "What can I not have on my user page? Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." Uhm... I don't think you get any more related to Wikipedia than a Wikipedia article. Do you honestly think I kept that article in my user page so I could link real life friends to it or something? I really don't see the WP:NOT a webhost violation here.

People were working on that article man. It overwent a major overhaul as recently as a month and a half ago (by User:Indolences), and several people were involved in source citing and the rewrite. In addition, I had the support of admins involved in both the article's deletion and deletion review (mainly User:Saxifrage, take a look at the deleted article's talk page if you doubt this).

Was the article sitting in my sandbox really all that disruptive? – Lantoka (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a userfied copy of the deleted content. Nobody had touched it since December last, and actually there were only two edits since mid-November, so nobody was working on it. And even if they were, they were probably wasting their time since the primary issue - lack of sources - was not being addressed. And.... yes. How many times do we have to delete something before re-creating it becomes a problem? Fewer than we deleted General Mayhem, under numerous different titles. I trust that answers all your questions. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Policy pretty clearly sides with me on this, but you don't seem to care. Anyway, I'm not at all happy with how you've comported yourself during this incident. If I were an admin, I sure wouldn't go into other people's userspaces and speedy delete stuff that I didn't like, especially when no Wikipedia policy supports the action. The least you could have done if you wanted it gone that bad was an MFD, but apparently you don't have any respect for my userspace, my contributions, or the contributions of any other person that worked on that article and tried to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I'll let this redlink speak for itself: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lantoka/Sandbox2 – Lantoka (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you'll find that policy and consensus are pretty firmly against holding copies of multiply-deleted content in your user space, especially when they are not being actively worked on. The fact that you would not go and delete copies of multiply-deleted articles from places around the project while I will, may explain why you are not an admin and I am :-) Guy (Help!) 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that succinct observation. You seem to be full of wit today. – Lantoka (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, situation normal. I've been watching the kids build snowmen :o) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Snow Guy (Help!) 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Alleged GDFL Violations

Ignore Fys, I blocked him a while ago for a WP:3RR violation on a WP:BLP article, and he's still sore about it. I told you what the problem was with your GenMay page, and actually since it was apparently copied from a cache or mirror the article also violated GFDL. You can take it to WP:DRV if you like, though, I have no problem with reviews of any of my deletions. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Friday undeleted the article for me and moved it to User:Lantoka/gm so that I could work on developing a sourced copy that would stand up to another deletion review. I took the text directly from the last good version of the article and threw it into my sandbox. I have no idea how on earth this could possibly violate GFDL. I am working on a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia. A quick search of the full text of the GDFL for the words "cache" and "mirror" don't turn up any results, either. What on earth are you talking about? – Lantoka (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to preserve the history. Copying a cached version violates that. It's better to apply the amnesia test if working up a new article. I have no problem with working up a new article, but that one was not being worked on, and we've deleted that subject at about half a dozen different titles, each time the consensus has been that it's not notable. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not following. The history of the old article is at User:Lantoka/gm, and I assume that if I ever got the green light for remaking the article that my sandbox would have to be merged with that, then the whole thing moved back to General Mayhem. Yes, it's a mess and yes, it's probably because I did it wrong, but how does the license tie into all this? I'm not understanding where the GFDL prohibits modifying free text, especially considering that this is all taking place on Wikipedia, with the purpose of improving the article. This Wikilawyering is really giving me a headache.

As far as I'm aware, General Mayhem was prodded once, undeleted by User:Essjay at my request, then nominated for WP:AFD. The AFD (which I did not participate in) was closed as delete by User:w.marsh despite a majority favoring keep. I objected to this and opened a WP:DRV, which was pretty much a total disaster and ended as endorse deletion. After this, I teamed up with several editors who thought the article could be properly sourced in time and obtained a working copy for my sandbox. And that's how things stood when you speedied my sandbox, undoing a lot of hard work. If you take a look at the sandbox talk page, you'll see a ton of sources that we were able to acquire and were working into the article.

Do you still not understand why I am upset? 1) Deleting my working copy of that article was needless and undid a lot of hard work. 2) Many people involved in thos whole GenMay thing supported the idea of sourcing the article so that it could win a deletion review at a later date. 3) I did this with the support of User:Saxifrage and other admins involved in the GenMay deletion process. 4) Policy protects user pages from speedy deletions, requiring a WP:MFD before deleting.

You speedying my sandbox, without leaving me a note, was rude, offensive, undid a lot of hard work, and violated policy. I am pissed. I've fought incredibly hard to keep this article afloat, and you undid all of that needlessly. Need I say more? – Lantoka (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted at General Mayhem, General mayhem, Genmay, GenMay, General mayhem forums, we have Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genmay, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/General Mayhem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November). I'm sure that's not half of it. Seems to me that we've thought long and hard about this one and decided against. I know you've fought hard to keep the article afloat, that's one reason why having it hanging around unedited in your user space was a problem. Policy absolutely allows for removal of deleted content in that situation. As for undoing work, (a) no work was ongoing and had not been for some time and (b) there were only seventeen edits including the original repost. But like I say, you can take the deletion of the user space copy to WP:DRV if you like. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a peek at...

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy, please? It's been sitting with only one certifier for well over the 48-hour period, so I delisted it and marked it for speedy last night (as I was advised to do when I brought a couple to WP:AN recently); the fellow who certified it is saying on my talk page, and the talk page of the RFC, that some admins understand the certification involves the person starting the RFC and one person endorsing it. I still don't see the two people he's talking about, so it'd be nice to have another person take a look. Much appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle Square

Thanks for explaining the situation to me. You did much better than anyone else who tired.

Most appreciated, may Wikipedia be with you

J19086

Not more personal attacks ...

What's the deal here? Yuser31415 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to find a sense of humour. :) ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the comment was made in jest, it was not in any way the appropriate thing for an admin to say, nor was it made in an attempt to calm the situation. ~~JzG can consider this his last warning for personal attacks. Period.~~ Yuser31415 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're entitled to believe that. I'll point out that the language of your own posts is largely unhelpful, too. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think Guy is a wonderful Wikipedian and admin, but personal attacks are inappropriate, and when they come from an admin (who may being looked up upon as a role model), they are downright unacceptable. Yuser31415 00:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't demonstrated how they are personal attacks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
- Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
- Yuser31415 00:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm aware of the NPA policy. Tell me how you think it applies, because I don't see it applying. If you said it was uncivil, I may agree, but personal attack? I'm sorry but I don't see anything pointed. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Why not ask your man Cameron if you can bum a spliff?" violates "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme". I'm sure that is clear. Yuser31415 01:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify, fys is an elected *Labour* party member. David Cameron is a Tory. Opposite sides. Nssdfdsfds 09:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I can't tell the difference any more, except in the dinosaurs on both sides :-) Guy (Help!) 09:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I've taken much harsher words than that in stride. Please assume good faith. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am assuming good faith. I do not, however, have to believe that his words are acceptable. I'm sure he was commenting in good faith. However, even in good-faith comments, one does not need to rise to an inflammitive tone of language. Cheers, Yuser31415 01:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking back on it, I probably didn't handle this the right way; I have struck my "final warning" comment. Apologies to all involved. However, I want to ask JzG to please not make any comment which could be construed as a personal attack. Cheers! Yuser31415 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. Fys is consistently aggressive and rude, he needs to chill. The fact that a British party leader is in the news for smoking cannabis was simply too good to miss :-) Guy (Help!) 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little question re:RfC

Hi JzG, I was wondering if you can explain your thinking to me. You recently deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy for not passing the 48 hour certification requirement. Much as I personally don't think it was a very valid grievance, as I recall (not being an admin I can't check) it had been certified by a user other than the person bringing the RfC. However, a couple of day ago you removed my speedy deletion tag from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay (see [2]). Your edit summary said "This was the work of two editors, so is certified even if not formally signed at the time". I'm having difficulty working out how strictly the certification requirement should be followed... Would appreciate your thoughts. WjBscribe 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the Request, a little help needed for Concordia College and University. That user who keeps removing the citations started Concordia College & University with the same information claiming its accredited in Liberia and it is a univerity in Indonesia. All kinds of bogus and questionable links added. FGT2 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National academy of higher education was started by the same user and looks bogus. Credential watch lists that as bogus. FGT2 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly, the Chairboy one was sour grapes in respect of a single incident, whereas the JJay one is the result of a long-standing pattern of behaviour, !voting keep almost as if he is just being contrary. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PT Platinum Ceramics Industry

The page has been recreated for the 4th time. Any chance you can permanently prevent it from being recreated? (MichaelJLowe 05:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Milton

As far as I'm aware you were the only one arguing for the removal of the Ireland blog link. I think we need a bit of colour in our MP articles, god knows we have enough dry mundane ones already. Catchpole 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need "colour" which involves attack blogs, though. Dry? Encyclopaedias tend to be. Especially when they have policies on living individuals. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bradles 01#Blocked

I think the {{unblock-auto}} seals the deal, and provides the confirmation you requested. Daniel.Bryant 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Anderson AFD

See my comments at the end for a good enough reasoning of why this should be deleted. --sunstar net^talk 13:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effective deconflagration

When trying to extinguish a fire, Guy, applying water is sometimes effective, applying CO2 is sometimes effective, applying halon gas is sometimes effective, but applying petrol almost never helps. Rather, it tends to exacerbate the problem. Please try to have a calming influence on disputes, rather than rolling up your sleeves and joining in. Please. -- Ben 13:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I like :-) You are right, of course. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Hi, an entry you just put on DRV seems to have been malformed. I have tried fixing it up to what I think you wanted, but I think you should take a look at it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was dragged away to participate in some urgent sword manufacturing business (at home with the kids today). Guy (Help!) 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

Any chance you could get Jeff off my back? He seems to listen to you sometimes, and his persistent personal attacks against me are getting annoying. >Radiant< 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, JzG. He doesn't want mediation or informal arbitration, so we'll go through it the hard way and the problem will be solved in a way no one wants. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You both sound so funny when you fight like this. Yuser31415 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) You know, Guy, if you have the time, you might make the ideal mediator for Radiant! and Jeff. They both respect you, and your direct style and willingness to call a spade a, well, you know what, might help resolve the current dispute. (Or not, of course). TheronJ 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Theron has it right. For the record I would be happy with mediation iff Jeff would simply quit making personal attacks against me; however he has so far refused to do so. >Radiant< 09:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what consolation are you willing to make? That's part of this issue - you don't get to dictate terms here, so that's why we're where we're at. If you were happy with mediation, you would have taken it without strings attached. I didn't demand you stop editing policy pages while mediation went on, after all, something I definitely could have requested. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NPA is a non-negotiable behavioral policy. It is not a "string" attached to anything, and it is not a bargaining chip. You do not get to demand concessions in return for an agreement to follow policy, because you should not be making personal attacks in the first place. >Radiant< 14:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thus the disagreement - accurately describing your practices is not a personal attack. You disagree, and you use that as your force in not accepting mediation, so off to Arbcom we go. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that you haven't been accurate at all in describing me or the dispute. Your opinion is not fact, and giving a biased opinion is by definition not an "accurate description of practices". As several people have recently pointed out to you, yes, you have been making personal attacks. >Radiant< 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff and Radiant, do you want me to try and help you work this out? I'm happy to have a go, provided you are prepared to stop digging at each other while we talk. That's assuming you both trust me to act as honest broker, which I hope you would. I think we should have worked this out a long time ago, and I'm sorry I didn't pitch in earlier before it escalated to this point. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. >Radiant< 16:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know I generally trust your judgement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So the next step is: do we want to start by making a Wiki page to discuss the dispute, or should we start by emailing me the basis of the dispute? I don't mind. What I want to do is to get from each of you your view on where the problem started, and what caused it to escalate. It would also be really helpful if you could make (privately if you prefer) a list of the things you think are good and bad about the way each of you has acted here. Also, a comment on why you believe the result of the underlying dispute is important to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A subpage of some sort is fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. User talk:JzG/JR it is. Excuse my clumsiness and naive questions, I am really not an experienced mediator but I do want to see this solved, or at least some kind of accommodation reached. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. However, it may pretty much be a moot point because of this; I suppose you may want to comment on that. >Radiant< 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports trainer

I had just deleted all those silly entries from my talk page, but only 'cause I didn't see anything changing. What about the pictures told you they were just messing with me and wikipedia? I thought they were pretty realistically stupid. Sfahey 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopping the word "Sports Trainer" onto an image is one thing, adding it using Windows Paint, with the text square and not aligned wiht the image, is quite another! Guy (Help!) 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dear Hunter

I spotted this on DRV. It's protected from recreation, but wouldn't it be a bit more useful for it to be a protected redirect to The Deer Hunter? - hahnch e n 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BWAH! Killer tag!

<span id="coordinates"> ... Friggin' AWESOME! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's clever! Guy (Help!) 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice/help

The article Jeronymite seems to me to be clearly just a work of fiction. Just read it. Besides, I have found no confirmation whatever elsewhere of the existence of "a religious and ethnic minority originally from the Adriatic Basin" who included such illustrious figures as Marco Polo and the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo, and who are also presented as Traditionalist Catholics that date from even before the Council of Trent, and who, though consisting of only about 500 people, are making their presence felt as far afield as Chile. The Bibliography attached to the fictional article looks impressive, but none of the books in it mention the so-called Jeronymites. I could change the page back to what it was originally, a redirect to the article on the once important religious order of the Hieronymites, who really did exist. But I think much more than that should be done. The articles into which links to the fictional one have been inserted should also be corrected. How should I go about dealing with this problem? Or can you, will you please, deal with it yourself? Lima 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the links requires specialist knowledge (would Hieronymite be equally appropriate?) so it's best if a Catholic editor does that. I am happy to make the Jeronymite article into a protected redirect. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretfully, I must concur with Lima. The Jeronymites/Hieronymites were and are a religious order, monastic and sometimes hermitic, once very influential and now almost vanished, which is not at all the same thing as a "religious and ethnic minority originally from the Adriatic Basin". Where the basic thesis of Jeronymite (before you reverted to the redirect) diverges from that of Hieronymites, I could find no support for it elsewhere. Having gone through the contribution history of "London321", the only edits I could completely trust were his saying "Hello" on his userpage and his adding his own username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Participants. Though much of his Korzulot is verifiable (if badly spelled), the two sentences of the second paragraph are both dubious and (as he admits) "heavily disputed"; as phrased, and uncited, they don't belong in an article. In his defense is the possibility that sometimes he may be telling history the way he learned it: Croatians, and particularly those on the island of Korčula, do claim Marco Polo as one of their own by birth -- though, as Polo himself said, he was born in Venice. But London321's cited reference in the Catholic Encyclopedia (the same article each time, "Latin Church") nowhere supports anything for which he cites it. I am struggling not to flatly say "hoaxer" -- due to the possibility he's relaying what he was taught, the possibility that somehow all this escaped being recorded anywhere else on the Web that Google can find, and the certainty of my own non-omniscience -- but it's still taking every ounce of AGF and APBB I can summon up. By all means, please ask those more knowledgeable to review the record and offer their own conclusions. They needn't be Catholic; a good grasp of southeastern European history should suffice. I've left London321's material unedited, only for the sake of such a review; otherwise I'd have urged rolling back everything he wrote and demanding verifiable sources before allowing anything back on. -- Ben 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the statements about "Jeronymites" (in the peculiar sense that the article in question gave to the word) from the articles that I found linked with it. (I have left "Jeronymites" in the very few articles in which it was used in its correct sense as another form of "Hieronymites".) The biographies of supposed "Jeronymite" artists and scientists were translated into very defective English from Italian texts given as sources. These texts make no mention whatever of "Jeronymites". The English badly needs improving: I retouched only one or two short phrases, since at this moment I did not have time to do more. Lima 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Hopefully that'll be an end of this little bit of POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

peekvid

i am requesting a revert of the deletion and protection of the article on peekvid. it was deleted because it "wasnt notable". this site receives many hundred millions of page views per day, as shown here on its alexa page. please re activate this page. thanks Gamersedge 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been through deletion review only recently. What has changed since then? Guy (Help!) 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Concordia College and University:

You recently protected[3] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of National academy of higher education:

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another favour to ask...

...and feel free to tell me to get lost if I'm bothering you too often. I reverted a change a user made to Notse a few days ago; it was previously a redirect to Notsé, but User:Yyttu changed it to a page about a backup forum to TOTSE. The user has apparently reverted again, due to some interesting logic on his/her talk page. Would you mind taking a look when you get a moment? I'm not sure the backup forum is that exciting (not that the page being redirected to is terribly exciting either, but still). Thanks again. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. There's a problem with TOTSE in that of its two reliable sources, one does not mention the forum at all and the other is a passing mention only. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports carnival

You might like to take another look at the AfD if you haven't recently, all the votes have been in favour of keeping it. Would you consider withdrawing your nomination of it? Mathmo ^Talk 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would close like a shot if the opinions for expanding and improving extended to the fixing article rather than just statements on the AfD... Guy (Help!) 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

911ct

And I'd suggest that you go through previous discussions before making any such claims. 911ct template cannot be expanded without looking silly, as it looks now. Lovelight 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you;re right, we have far too many articles on nonsensical 9/11 conspiracy theories, especially given that they have zero support from credible sources. We're long overdue a purge of this crap. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown people

You locked this article. Any idea when you are going to unlock it? I wont be editing it in a contentious way I give you my word on that but I do think the article needs time to grow and it wont do that in its current permafrost state, SqueakBox 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke. Do please try to remain calm and remember that Uncle G is one of the good guys. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've never come across Uncle G before or since, SqueakBox 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Trainer

I didnt see this article before it was deleted, so I was just wondering if it failed notabilty? Thanks, --Ali K 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

There is an editor, User:SFTVLGUY2 , who adds a lot of new articles to Wikipedia, but he deletes the plot summaries and info boxes out of lots of articles. He won't yield to the consensus of editors. Any advice? See for example our current article at Cactus Flower's talk page -- Ssilvers 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take it to dispute resolution to get more eyes. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in my talk page

Consensus was, IIRC, that the template should be re-created in some form after being deleted. Messianic Judaism is an established religion with its own Wikiproject, so a permanent deletion was never on the table in the first place. Noogster 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic Arbcom case

Wow, man, you didn't have to take up my case like that. I really, really appreciate it. I thought I was on my own. --BenBurch 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe organ WikiProject

Hi.

You recently expressed an interest in joining a WikiProject for Pipe organ related articles. I have proposed one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Pipe Organ. It looks like a few others are interested, so it'd be good to get something off the ground.

Best wishes, Mdcollins1984 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I say recently, it was December 2005 (not 2006 as I first thought)!. Anyway, if you're still interested, have a look. Mdcollins1984 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I wish my late friend Bill Milligan had lived long enough for this. He was a pipe organ player and restorer second to none. --BenBurch 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, when it comes to "second to none", I used to know Noel Mander :-) Guy (Help!) 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cardreader

I think its highly unlikely he's a sock of Primetime. Is there an RFCU I can look at? Cardreader speaks fairly proficient Hindi and only edited india related pages.Baka man 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Dmcdevit, a checkuser. You could ask him, though. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:GordonWatts

Gordon Watts (talk · contribs) -- a prime POV pusher if there ever was one -- is going to ridiculous -- even disruptive -- lengths to justify the return of links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage sites at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. The insanely long Wikilawyering comparison of his site and the New York Times as somehow being equivalent -- just the latest in a series of convoluted and tireless rationalizations can be found at the Talk page) and has to be read to be believed. He seems incapable of taking a hint from literally everyone who's commented (with the exception of Patsw (talk · contribs), who briefly resurfaced after a long absence from the Terri Schiavo pages but doesn't seem to have re-returned after his initial foray).

Given Gordon's complete inability to understand basic guidelines, policies, or consensus, and his unflagging persistence, I have NO idea what would work, but perhaps you can take a shot at it.

P.S.: I'm going to leave this message on a few other admins' pages, and maybe they can try figuring something out, too. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've had enough of him: your input is requested at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts --Calton | Talk 13:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nkras

Nkras[5] is playing POINT again,[6] and threatening meatpuppetry,[7] (also not for the first time). — coelacan talk — 11:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undo is good for this. I think most of his crap is gone now, and the IP is blocked. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberNations

You said you would get me the text of the Cybernations article which you so disgracefully and unreasonably speedy deleted. As i said, a number of wikipedians wish to appeal this decision (once someone figures out how to navigate the complexities of the anarchic beurocracy that is WP), but we want to do some work on the text before submitting it. Can I please have the text back? My original request has now been 'archived' in your vast rubbish bin, funny how WP has space for milions of kilobytes of your junk and not a couple of thousand for a notable article huh :P Bjrobinson 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to, but since you are so pleasant about it maybe I won't bother. Did you see the note at the top about connectivity issues? Guy (Help!) 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah wiki winds me up sometimes. Didn't you see the ':p'emoticon? That makes it all right, cos its automatically sarcastic / 'tongue in cheek' :P (see there it is again). I check your user page to see if you have replied quite regualarily and i see alot of other people in the same boat, so yeah, i got annoyed. I did say please! Bjrobinson 00:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:$ London Apartments

I recall some discussion about this user's page, and you were involved in some reverting on the talk page. User:96seven24 reverted you. With the edit summary s/he used, I am assuming this person is a troll and/or sockpuppet with no intention of being an editor. Hence I blocked this user indefinitely. Just wanted to give you a head's up. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is some spammer who's been blocked and who is beating the long-dead horse of Wikia links and Angela's supposed conflict of interest. He can get lost. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

JzG/Archive 24

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Just a note per ANI....

The 1992 category has been recreated at some point, as there's one user in it, and no history. MSJapan 22:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a server cache issue. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born-in-93 debacle over nothing

Hello, JzG! Hope that bandwidth of your straightens up and flies right. Anyways, I'm here to talk about this comment, which doesn't seem to encourage straightening-up-and-flying-right, because as far as I know, you're an involved party as well. Would you like to enter private mediation? I'd be more than happy to bring this much ado about nothing to peace. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all over the place. Ten, fifteen minutes of service, then it goes like a slug on Mogadon, then it goes off for anythign between minutes and hours. No fix before middle of next week, and the landline phone is down as well. Bah! BT are a bunch of dunces. Anyway, no, I'm not an involved party, other than endorsing the TfD result, which involved a debate with much thought behind it. Users refusing to accept consensus is bad, admins doing it and wheel-warring is very bad. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really recognize you as one of the wheel-warrers, however I'd nonetheless am inviting you to be involved with my attempt to discussion on User:Messedrocker/Wikipedians born in 1993. You're not in trouble, I just want this to be all smooth so it doesn't have to fall under the jurisprudence of someone much more official. Interested? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble comes when you egregiously override consensus... Guy (Help!) 09:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

According to what policy was it legitimate to delete this? Worldtraveller 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to retain editorial control, so it has been moved to your user space. The remaining redirect was a cross-namespace redirect. The edit war at that site was also probably the lamest I have ever seen. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LAME is not a policy. Which policy says 'delete all redirects from WP to user space'? Worldtraveller 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN, WP:VAIN, cross-namespace redirect and that's before you start examining the lame edit war itself. Move on. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:OWN apply to a redirect, exactly? WP:VAIN says Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to people it is applied to., so not a policy but a personal attack. What you think of the edit war is utterly irrelevant. Don't tell me to move on. Worldtraveller 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy -- I have great respect for you, but strongly disagree with deleting this page. It needs to be restored with a soft redirect to the essay in Worldtraveller's userspace. On del.icio.us, this page (in WP namespace) is bookmarked by 25 users. That's a fairly high number of bookmarks, especially considering how recently this page was created in the first place. I'm sure it's linked in scores of other places and bookmarked elsewhere by scores more. For the sake of the reader, please restore the WP page. Regards. --Aude (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have an essay whose author is unwilling to allow others to participate. I have written numerous essays, and seen them rewritten, often to the point of unrecognisability. I can sympathise with the frustration. But this is a Wiki, an essay in project space is liable to be edited because such essays exist to document perspectives on the project and how it works. Perspectives which are disputed invite edits to document the dispute. Worldtraveller is unwilling to accept such edits, so the content was moved to his user space, and that is fine. The remaining redirect gives the halo effect of project space to a userspace essay, which is not. Cross-namespace redirects are deprecated. The last thing we need is a load of visitors from Slashdot seeing us washing our laundry in public, so I... hastened the process a little (it's alreadsy spread to the admin noticeboard and RFAR, we really don't need this silliness). The end result is the same. We don't have redirects from project to user space. Either it's an essay in project space and gets edited mercilessly, or it's a user page and gets left pretty much alone. I don't mind much which, but you can't have it both ways. Note that WP:FAIL was deleted as WP:CSD#R2 by someone else. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from articles space to others are valid targets for deletion. Others are not.

Why did you quote WP:VAIN? Were you setting out to be offensive?

Why shouldn't visitors from outside the site be able to find a critical essay?

A 'halo'? That's just nonsense.

Finally, again, please tell me which policy you are referring to to justify your deletion, or are you just making it up as you go along? Worldtraveller 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See how many redirects you can find form project space to user space. See how many of them are the result of users refusing to accept edits to opinionated content. Visitors can see a critical essay, as long as you're happy for it to be edited mercilessly (like it says in the edit box). If you don't want it edited mercilessly, it lives in user space. I don't see what problem you're asking me to fix. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, JzG, is that you've deleted a useful link quoting bogus policy, deliberately set out to be offensive in your replies to me, and deliberately mischaracterised the situation. You can fix that by unprotecting the redirect, so that people can find the essay. Why shouldn't people be able to find the essay? Worldtraveller 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of readers, we need to set aside wikilawyering and use common sense. Scores of people have the page bookmarked and linked, and will wonder what happened to the page. --Aude (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of readers, we fix up contested content. If people are unprepared for the content to be fixed up, we don't use hat as a reason to continue to mislead readers into thinking the opinions are uncontested. What you are asking for is ownership by stealth. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mislead? Come on, be serious. Did you never hear of a talk page? Did you not read any of the discussion that was going on? You credit people with very little intelligence if you think they would take the essay as anything other that a thesis to discuss. And how can anyone 'own' a redirect, for heaven's sake? I don't think you fully understand what you're saying. Worldtraveller 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete the redirect page. If anything, take this needs to be taken to AFD. This essay has been one of the most popular pages (#51 on this list) in February, even though it was created just a few days ago. (compared to other pages that have existed the whole month) People are clearly interested in the page and will wonder what happened to it. Let's not deny them the ability to find it. Wikilawyering needs to take a back seat. --Aude (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it's a matter of public interest and discussion, I for one would like to see the original essay kept accessible for view, shortcut/redirect links working and all, especially since those links are still being cited in discussions. Please, Guy. -- Ben 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, either we have a page in project space that ets edited mercilessly or we have a user page which gets more or less left alone. All I see here is an editor who wants to capitalise on the attention of Slashdot to make a point when numerous editors challenged the point he was making. This is a wiki. You don't get to make a page, get it on Slashdot and then take your ball away when people contest your arguments. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, so it's slashdot that's the problem is it? Not my fault they linked to it. Presumably you don't want anyone who's reading the slashdot article to be able to find the essay. And did you read the talk page? Disagreement is healthy and lively discussion was exactly what I was after. Productive discussion about a thesis is impossible when the thesis suddenly changes into completely the opposite thesis, wouldn't you say? You're the one 'taking the ball away' by desperately trying to conceal my (actually fairly innocuous) arguments. Worldtraveller 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the catalyst, not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that we either have essays in project space which get edited (I tought this was a good basis and the edited version was shaping up nicely), or user pages which we allow up to a point for users to say their piece, but we don't muddy the waters by allowing people to WP:OWN high-traffic pages. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to own the fucking essay, OK? I tried to stop it being changed to reflect the opposite point of view. Do you really not see that? Worldtraveller 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're obviously so certain that you're right about deleted the link that you overturned the actions of another administrator to delete it again. That's pretty poor behaviour. Worldtraveller 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, Aude was so certain that they were right about having the link that they overturned the actions of another administrator. Cuts both ways. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down please! Both of you. While I have looked at the page in question, I am not offering a solution to the problem, I don't know enough about redirecting cross-space or the use of wiki essays etc. I would only suggest that this bickering is getting neither of you anywhere. Worldtraveller, I suggest that if you plan to keep fighting for the essay or the redirect, you ask another admin to take an objective look at your case, and bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. JzG, I would suggest that you didn't comment further, it doesn't seem to be doing you any favours mate. Mdcollins1984 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am calm. I am the admin who took an objective look at the case, and I'm not the only one who thinks this way. The fact that Worldtraveller is unprepared to accept anything other than his own version is a problem, and it's being discussed at the admin noticeboard right now. As far as I'm concerned we should ave the essay back in project space and edited, clarified and extended by others. As far as I can tell there's only one person who doesn't accept that, Worldtraveller. Like it says in the edit box, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I've had essays rewritten (to my eyes, butchered) but I don't own them so that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to understand. One person took it upon themselves to rewrite the essay so that it came to the opposite conclusion. You keep on churning out this rubbish about how I wouldn't accept changes - I am really not sure if you've actually fully understood what the original essay said and what the revised version said. In any case, none of this offers any reason why there should not be a redirect to where the essay got moved to. Worldtraveller 13:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way this is being handled by you Guy is unacceptable. Please stop wiki-laywering over a redirect page. (MichaelJLowe 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is indeed unacceptable. I don't know where the "opposing"/"rebuttal" links are either... can't find them. You are denying me (and outside readers coming in) those links, as well as the link to the essay by Worldtraveller. I don't agree with every detail in that essay, but appreciate the useful discussion at User talk:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing‎. I'm so disgusted at this point at this wikilawyering. --Aude (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there. Did I say I don't appreciate the attempt to critique current editing practice? I don't think so. I think much of what's in that essay needs to be said. And some of it is not really quite right, and needs a bit of tweaking. Hey, that's good, because this is a Wiki, right? Except that Worldtraveller won't allow anyone else to edit it, and that is a problem. It's not about Wikilawyering, it's about policy: WP:OWN. I would much rather see the original restored into project space and edited by those who want to edit it. I don't mind if Worldtraveller wants to keep it focused and not be an apologia, that's fine, but WP:OWN is unequivocally wrong, and what was being done with the redirects was [{WP:OWN]] by stealth. See the discussion on WP:AN right now, it's not a particularly controversial view I'm putting forward here. I want people to hear what Worldtraveller has to say, but not in a context where all dissent is excluded. We simply don't do things that way. It's the difference between a thoughtful critique (which we need) and a soapbox (which we don't). I'd rather have the thoughtful critique back, because by and large I completely agree with it, as a cursory investigation of my !voting record at WP:DRV and WP:AFD will readily show. I prefer to see quality articles, not millions of crap ones, and the failure to protect FAs from idiocy has been identified many times by many people. A lot get demoted due to clueless editing or vandalism. This is bad. I'd say that once an article is featured there should be an expectation that all edits be discussed first, but that also goes against the Wiki philosophy so it's a controversial view. It's a debate that needs having, either way, but not by asserting ownership over the debate. We simply can't work like that. All WT needs to do is accede to the editing of the thing (which he did anyway by submitting it under GFDL) and we can all geton with building that encyclopaedia, critiques and all. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the essay is right or wrong, what matters is that it has sparked a very important discussion reflecting on how we can improve wikipedia. Please put aside any petty procedural issues you have for the sake of the ability of people to find the article, the rebuttal, and the associated discussion. (MichaelJLowe 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Controversial, eh? That's right, there was no consensus to delete the redirect page. What you did was unacceptable. The redirect page needs to remain, so that people can find the original essay by Worldtraveller and other versions. You are more than welcome to fork his essay, put a version in WP space, and link it from that redirect page. But please don't DENY people the ability to find the original essay. --Aude (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please just restore the page and get on to discussing broader issues. I left a suggestion on User talk:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing‎ that I would like more feedback on, to do an informal survey among my academic colleagues on their use of Wikipedia, why or why not they edit, etc. Given this whole debacle, I'm having doubts about bringing any of this up with my colleagues as this kind of petty wikilawyering may be one thing that turns them off. I think focusing on those issues is most important, rather than worrying about details like redirect pages. Please look beyond those details. --Aude (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you want is the original back in project space and being edited. Fine, that's what I want, too. All we need is to be sure that WT won't try to assert ownership or keep linking to "his" version (see WP:OWN, WP:SOAP, etc). The only thing I have a problem with - the only thing I ever had a problem with in this dispute - is the idea of linking back to some canonical "original" version which is not open to correction or critique. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not quite what we need. The version that had disambiguation/redirect links to different versions is what we need. I think it's better to have Worldtraveller's version -- in his user space, and links to responses or different takes on the topic on the WP page. Given all his featured article writing experience and all, I like to read his thoughts on Wikipedia. I would also like to read other people's thoughts. But mixing them all together in to a "consensus" version goes against the idea of "essay". --Aude (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think it's better, because this is a wiki and the whole point is that if something is wrong, or disputed, or nuanced slightly askew, we fix it. We don't keep pointing to out-of-date versions as if they have some kind of canonical validity. I respect WT's editing, and I think he is right in much of what he says, but we can get more benefit from a version that has wider input. When we deprecate POV forks, we do not distinguish between forks made by good editors and those made by bad editors, or forks made with good intentions versus those made with ill intent. We merge them back and carry on trying to come to a consensus view. Why this insistence on a single version? Is it that the edited version is somehow wrong where the other was right? If there is an error, it can and should be fixed by editing, not by pointing people to some mythical historically "perfect" version, and especially not by starting with an "oh, no, Slashdotters, you don't want this version, it's not nearly combative enough, you want an earlier version wikth editorial assertions unchallenged". That's plain silly. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

I'm not sure what your dispute is with the other editor, but you reverted my changes too, even though I opened a thread on the talk page. Regardless of whatever history you may have with this other editor, you should still look at the content objectively before WP:reverting. Dhaluza 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The POV-warrior had removed a chunk of stuff relevant to WP:SOAP, your intervening edits appeared to be to a large extent cleaning up his clumsiness. Sorry if not, I have to be quick because my broadband keeps dropping. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I appreciate your sense of responsibility, but if your network problems are rushing your decisions, it might be better to let other admins (with good net-connection) take up the workload until your network gets fixed. Otherwise the potential for hurt or angry feelings is... non-trivial.... -- Ben 05:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not decisions, just edits. In this case one edit. And that was mainly reverting a bit of WP:POINT by a blocked editor. Oh, and Jossi just reverted the edits under discussion anyway. Turns out tat Daluza was the POV-pushing IP. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, you better take one giant step back. I think you have just jumped the WP:AGF shark and accused me of being a sock puppet. I have no idea who the IP editor is. I just looked at the edits objectively, saw they were an improvement, restored them, and finished cleaning them up. Dhaluza 13:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't, the edits were made by an anon, you repeated them with your account. That does not imply sockpuppetry at all. So it wasn't you? No problem. But either way the edits are resisted by several others, including Jossi, so attacking me for reverting them when they were clearly originally part of some kind of POV push is hardly assuming good faith yourself, is it? Not that I care overmuch, except that disruptive editing of policy to advance an agenda is a particular hot button for me. This belongs on WT:NPOV anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you take the time to review the edits and reverts in question again. You seem to be handling several controversies at once, and perhaps with the connection problems, you are having difficulty tracking them all. You said I "was the POV pushing IP" which is not correct, so I hope to see some strikeout text above in your next edit. Further, I see no POV pushing in the edits. They were just removing obfuscation per WP:BETTER#Use short sentences and lists. As far as I can tell, there was no change in meaning. I opened a thread on this at WT:NPOV and referenced it in my edit comments, but neither you nor Jossi have accepted the invitation to discuss it there. Dhaluza 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My brain has perfect connectivity, and handling several controversies at once is perfectly normal. Oh, and one of them just closed. Take it to WP:NPOV, where it belongs. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you won't take the time to review the edits, at least look back to the top of this thread, and see that it started with an invitation to take it to the talk page! Dhaluza 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, if you treat everybody who responds to a request for intervention as an involved party, you rapidly run out of uninvolved parties. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your last comment, or where you are trying to go with this. Bottom line is you reverted my good faith edits in what appears to me to be a contradiction of the policy at WP:REVERT. You have not explained why a revert rather than a re-edit was appropriate. If you would like to explain it, the Bias thread at WT:NPOV is now active. Dhaluza 16:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bototm line is, I reverted edits that were being reverted by other people as a POV push, and which have been reverted again by other people since, presumably for the same reason. You are in the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

JzG, thanks for at least trying to sort out that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing. Sure, it got a little confusing, but I see what you were trying to do. If some comments on the Wikipedia talk page from me seem a little harsh, sorry, as that's not what I'm feeling. I'm just thinking that things have gotten very confusing there :-) I appreciate you comments on User talk:Worldtraveller's page. I think you have summed it up very well for everyone. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly one of the more bitter and pointless disputes :-) Guy (Help!) 09:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm plea for reason

Thank you for your note to NHN - I agree with your sentiments and perhaps he will listen to a respectfully framed suggestion. There is now an RfC on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) Regards --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doktor Who

Doktor Who, not Doctor Who.--Doktor Who 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) :][reply]

Urgent notice

Please delete JzG's recent post on the User Talk page of Chicagostyledog, as well as the record of it in the edit history. It contains a disclosure of personal information that violates the Wikipedia privacy policy. Dino 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a JH sock I think

Look at the IP for this early sock: [8] verses the talk page entry [9]. I guess it could be a BfP sock, but the Roskam connection plus the quick IP response of a known JH sock IP seems to indicate a JH sock. I updated the userpage for Joehazelton. If you agree, please update the talk page as it is protected pending the checkuser I filed [10]. --Tbeatty 05:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Don't bother, this Admin don't give a damm... He's just wraped up in his power trip.... truth, or facts or reason be dammed, only the relgion of jimbo and the coolaid is now relavent... wik=KAFKA=CATCH22=ANIMALFARM=1984 2+2=5 btw i'm joehazleton and I hate when others take credit for work I do...[reply]

John Taschner

The person who re-created John C. Taschner, by the name of User:SockpuppetSamuelson, is not me. I did not solicit them or anyone else to re-create it.

Would you please restore the text at the time of deletion, because it had a couple more sources and another notable award, required to meet WP:BIO? Thank you. James S. 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 429: / Line 429: @@
 == It's a JH sock I think ==
 Look at the IP for this early sock: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Propol&diff=prev&oldid=76487966] verses the talk page entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Roskam&curid=4188422&diff=109242647&oldid=109237938].  I guess it could be a BfP sock, but the Roskam connection plus the quick IP response of a known JH sock IP seems to indicate a JH sock.  I updated the userpage for Joehazelton.  If you agree, please update the talk page as it is protected pending the checkuser I filed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Joehazelton].  --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 05:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
+Don't bother, this Admin don't give a damm... He's just wraped up in his power trip.... truth, or facts or reason be dammed,  only the relgion of jimbo and the coolaid is now relavent... wik=KAFKA=CATCH22=ANIMALFARM=1984 2+2=5  btw i'm joehazleton and I hate when others take credit for work I do...
 == John Taschner ==