Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Would you consider participating

in an audio discussion (or you could participate by IM as well) here. We have had some big cheeses on from the Foundation. And I have appeared twice; it is sort of fun. Come join us!--Filll (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

my user page

Hi Guy, dont know if you are the right person to report this, however on my user page I got some sort of sockpuppet message and on my discussion page some one from this IP 88.68.194.92 left a really nasty message. Most likely the author of that article Pashtun Mafia under a different address. I was wondering if it can be traced to an ID on wiki? Regards NangOnamos (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block

[1] - I think he needs an indef username block. It's a clear case of COI. Also, I don't think 15 minute blocks are very constructive... Thoughts? ScarianCall me Pat! 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm aiming to get his attention. If he continues after that, then we can say that we have definitely got his attention and he doesn't care, in which case we should show him the door. Might be a confused n00b, but I agree it's pretty unlikely that this one will ever be anything other than a nuisance. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Hooke

Guy, let me know if I can help dig up sources. I have access to several library search engines and can find journals, papers, etc.

On a completely different note, would you consider closing the ANI thread here? It has become a forum for recreational complaining about an editor; no admin action has even been requested. --Laser brain (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Warnborough College

I see that you semi-protected this article with the reason "Questionable edits by anonymous users." The reason for this move is not obvious to me. The only unregistered user editing there recently is User:216.157.197.218, who has made numerous edits to the article over the past month and has participated responsibly and amicably in talk page discussions. While it is possible to quibble with some of that user's edits, on the whole they are at least as good as (if not better than) many contributions to that article by registered users. That article has been the scene of edit wars, but this anonymous user has not been a problem there. --Orlady (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I will look again. The subject is complaining of inappropriate edits to the article. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I suspect the article subject will continue complaining about that article until it is rewritten to eliminate all content that depicts the institution in an unfavorable light. Unfortunately for them, almost all of the independent reliably sourced information that exists about the institution is less-than-favorable. Also, most of the recent edits that they are likely to be complaining about were made by established registered users. The recent anonymous contributions to the article were primarily of content about Warnborough's former location(s) in Oxfordshire. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh yes. And guess what? I have another four or five places sending exactly the same kind of emails. "Bear's guide is years old, get rid of it." "We don't operate from there any more, get rid of it." "We moved out of Hawaii, so they didn't actually shut us down as such, get rid of it." The only thing these places refuse to do in defence of their reputations is get accreditation. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The other thing they possibly could do is become the kinds of institutions that people respect. One thing that I have found interesting in researching unaccredited institutions is that a few of them (primarily religious schools, but not all religious schools) actually seem to garner respect in certain circles. --Orlady (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A few, yes. But in some of those cases the respect comes only from young-earth creationists... Guy (Help!) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Merkey thread

Hi, Guy. Not sure if you've seen this yet, but there's a thread about Jeff at ANI. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Merkey

FYI. His IPs were just banned. Lawrence § t/e 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

I have questions about the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam.

First, did you notice that I was doing my best not to respond in kind to the nominator's ugly personal attacks?

Do you have any advice on how to deal with personal attacks of that kind?

I have found that some administrators make merely pro-forma replies to questions about their decisions. I have a vague recollection that you provided me with some helpful replies some years ago. I hope I have that right.

WRT to your concluding statement... you wrote:

"The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources."

Several participants asserted that the article didn't cite secondary sources. I replied that I had raised the general question as to whether the kinds of allegation memos this article cited should be considered "secondary sources" on WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. Of course you are entitled to reach a different conclusion from that expressed here.

But can I say that I am disappointed that you did not address the counter-arguments?

You wrote:

"...since the article is largely comprised of minor details of his detention."

Actually, I wondered whether you misspoke here. I think the article is focussed around the justifications OARDEC offered for his continued detention -- not the details of his detention.

  • Each captive's cell has an arrow that points towards Mecca.
  • All but the most compliant captives are rationed to 15 sheets of toilet paper per day.

These are what I would call "details of his detention".

Now, maybe you misspoke, and would be just as prepared to explain your reasoning in concluding deletion by writing that the article was "...largely comprised of the justifications for his detention."

Some people would argue that it is "obvious" that the material in this article in "minor" or "trivial". I have an unpolished essay on claims of "obviousness". The judgment that the material is "minor", or "trivial", is a judgment call. You administrators are authorized to make judgment calls, but I believe that administrators have an obligation to explain those judgment calls.

In my contributions to the wikipedia's coverage of the war on terror I have worked very hard to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VER. As part of that effort I don't wave my arms, and say, "This is of major importance! This is of major importance! This is not of minor importance! This is of major importance!" Personally, I do think this material is of major importance.

You wrote:

"...the things that go on at gitmo are said by many (and with some justification) to be an outrage to human decency, but Wikipedia is not Amnesty International."

No offense, but this does not seem to be a valid argument.

While Amnesty International seems to have a commitment to intellectual honesty, it is an advocacy group. The material on its web-sites were not written to comply with anything like the wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV.

The wikipedia's coverage of the Guantanamo captives strictly complies with WP:NPOV -- it is not advocacy. Readers use these articles. They are, I believe, encyclopedic.

In general whether material belongs in the wikipedia should not hinge on the opinions of wikipedians who see it as "an outrage on human decency". The wikipedia' policies prohibit POV-pushing, advocacy.

Material contributed to the wikipedia coverage of the controversial topic of abortion should not hinge on whether the contributing wikipedia personally sees it as an outrage on human dignity -- or whether they see prohibiting a women's right to choose as "an outrage to human dignity." The same with material contributed on the death penalty, or same sex marraige...

Now, it is possible that you included this passage not because it was central to how you reached your conclusion, and that the main reason you included it was some kind of bridge-building, so those who voiced "keep" opinions wouldn't feel you ignored the points they made.

But, no offense, I don't think wikipedian contributions of material on the war on terror should imply there is "an outrage on human decency" going on. WP:NPOV talks about Adolph Hitler, and Saddam Hussein, and suggests that we should not insert statements like "AH was evil". "SH was evil". The "AH was evil" or "SH was evil" statements would be the equivalent of "AH committed outrages on human decency".

We have to respect our readers. We have to respect their independent judgment. If our readers reach a conclusion at odds with ours it is not a failure in how we contributed that material. I am going to assume, for the sake of argument, that your personal opinion about Adolph Hitler agrees with mine -- that it is fair to consider AH evil.

The reason this particular article is important, IMO, is that there is a big mismatch between the general description offered of who the Guantanamo captives were "the worst of the worst", "captured on the battlefield", etc. Readers are entitled to compare the specific allegations against Ajam with the general, and very serious allegations applied to all the captives, including Ajam, and reach their own conclusions as to whether there is a match.

Thanks in advance for taking time to reply Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I thought I explained it in the close. Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. Generic issues with the bogus rationales used to hold political prisoners without trial, are best discussed in the article on the Guantanamo camp, not in faux-biographies which read as Amnesty campaign pages. Apart from anything else it leads to an excess of redundancy. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

You're wanted. Regards, Rudget (review) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi JzG,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [2].

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding to my request. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nathalie Handal

Hi Guy, Did Handal specify what was her objection to the information she removed from her biographical article, in her email to OTRS ? I was wondering because I was the one who had written those sentences (along with most of the article), and they are based directly on her first person biographical article:

Handal, Nathalie (2004), "My country, my words:Reflections on a life as a writer", in Darraj, Susan Muaddi (ed.), Scheherazade's Legacy: Arab and Arab American Women on Writing, Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 38 (second paragraph), ISBN 0275981762

As far as I can see the content is in no way negative. I am not proposing re-adding the content to the article over the objections of Handal; am just curious to know what those objections are, in case you have any information ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No idea, mate. I think she's mainly pissed that she's been reverted on her own article, I didn't see anything specific that was defamatory, it might just be a question of disputing the relative weight or maybe it's some past edits. I tried to calm her down and encourage her to go to talk, I think she will be treated decently if she does engage there. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's sad. She is a accomplished writer and it would be nice to have a well-developed wikipedia article on her. I thought we could write one, with her cooperation and help in finding sources, but that doesn't seem likely now. Well ... Thanks for the quick reply. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I think it should be fine. She was a bit upset but nothing like some people. A bit of make-nice and everything will hopefully resolve itself - people don't necessarily understand how Wikipedia works before they pile in. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets hope so! I had left her a polite talk page message pointing to the article talk page on March 19th, but she didn't respond then; hopefully she will follow your pointers this time. She, being an expert on contemporary Arab and women writing, would be a great asset to wikipedia as an editor and could help remedy some of the unavoidable systemic bias we have; so it will be worth going an extra mile to help her acclimatize with the wikipedia norms. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OHA Hockey

I disapprove of your actions and am seriously wondering about your ability to fill the capacity of administrator appropriately. I am so disgusted that I really don't know what to say to you. I do believe that you should seriously consider overturning the damage you did to the articles on Ontario hockey articles. You give the appearance of having no knowledge of the sport, and you seem to have so little respect for your fellow Wikipedian that you would not question the author about the notability of the subjects or contact the applicable wikiproject (Ice Hockey Wikiproject) about the subject and ask about it. DMighton (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • What, deleting articles on junior level clubs which had a grand total of precisely no independent sources at all between the whole lot of them? I thought it was a fair interpretation of WP:CSD#A7 myself. Wikiprojects don't WP:OWN any part of article space. Sorry you found this offensive, but I didn't see much good would be served by a no-doubt bruising debate. These were junior level clubs, and the articles lacked even an assertion of notability, let alone evidence in the form of multiple non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Then post a "need sources" template. I, as many others, could provide sources for anything that was listed. The assertion of notability was found just fine by every person who cam across it before you. Wikipedia has processes. You skipped a whole shitload of diplomatic ones to puck your POV. DMighton (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is also the fact that you deleted your own speedies which is very highly frowned upon. This level of hockey team has been supported by many afds to be notable. They should have been afd'd if you didn't like them and not speedied and deleted by yourself. I have reverted all your deletions. If you want to delete them please take it to afd. -Djsasso (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So notable, in fact, that not one of the articles had a single independent source cited. That's what I meant by a bruising debate: people will come along and get very wound up and upset that things they consider notable because they like them, fail core policy and long-standing guidance. Multiple non-trivial independent reliable secondary sources primarily about the subject = notable. Junior level hockey teams with namechecks for a bunch of teenagers and sourced solely from the team's website hosted in a free webspace provider? Not exactly a shoo-in per WP:N. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If anything we document less junior level teams than in other sports. Soccer for example documents to even younger ages than we do. Baseball documents alot more inconsequential teams than we do. To meet WP:N is that the subjects are written about in independant sources, which all of these teams most definately are. Newspapers in all these towns cover these teams. You may not like that they are notable, but they are. Remember not all sources need come from online. -Djsasso (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually its not, because I am not saying we should keep them cause those ones exist. I was just commenting that I don't think we are out of wack with other such sports based on your comment. They should be kept because they quite easily meet WP:N. -Djsasso (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. And I consider them WP:CRUFT. We should do our very best to help people move these articles to a separate project where there are no considerations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:N and so on, where issues of drive-by "ryan is teh gay" vandalism won't cause WP:BLP problems, and where Wikipedia won't be blazing the trail. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And where chronic incivility by admins gets dealt with in a way Wikipedia can then adopt? Minkythecat (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Disjoint category. This is about unsourced articles on junior league teams. Thanks for playing, though. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Disjoint logic. Whilst this is about unsourced articles on junior league teams I refer you to these rather condescending comments. "We should do our very best to help people move these articles to a separate project where there are no considerations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:N and so on, where issues of drive-by "ryan is teh gay" vandalism won't cause WP:BLP problems, and where Wikipedia won't be blazing the trail." Whilst such articles may be cruft - and I note you use the phrase "And I consider them WP:CRUFT. Clearly JzG overrides any consensus from previous AfDs about the level of the articles. Now, a more reasonable approach may have been to pro-actively work with the contributors to try to improve the articles rather than speedy delete - or is the aim not to provide an online encylopedia with a wider scope than Britannica? Minkythecat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Which is uncivil because?... We don't work to improve things whihc are fundamentally not suitable for Wikipedia. We help the Trekkers to move their stuff to Memory Alpha, the Star Wars fans to get it to Wookiepedia, the Lost community to rescue Lostcruft to Lostpedia. Wikipedia is an enditable website, we want editable content, therefore We want Wikipedia articles - that is a logical disconnect. These are not even the top tier of junior competition, and not even a national junior competition at that. Just like episodes and characters, the Great Pokemon Purge and all the other areas where fan enthusiasm has lost sight of core policy. Wikia is third on the left down the hall, and we'll happily help move it there. But I don't see how Wikipedia's policies are consistent with articles on regional minor league junior teams. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - now if AfDs had agreed, sure. As others here seem to have pointed out, reporting at this low level is fine by community consensus. If the lofty nobly goal of being an encyclopedia - which wikipedia fails totally at - is the true goal then radical reform is needed. Don't treat everyone as alleged equals, higher standards with regards to biographies. In short, act as a real encyclopedia with the full accountability. That's not the scenario, so deal with it... In an environment where anyone can edit, sure, there's a high degree of fanboi-ism. Some acceptable, some fine. There are ways and means of dealing with such situations without adopting a patronising condescending attitude towards contributors who are not professional encyclopedia writers. Minkythecat (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Plus, did you, in this casse, help them move the article to another wiki which you seem to be implying should happen, or did you just speedy delete, thus alienating people not well versed in such wikipolitics? Minkythecat (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Common misconception: majority of interested editors who turned up to vote WP:ILIKEIT at AfD is not "consensus" in the way that policy represents consensus. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed to a degree. It's the best consensus you'll get amongst those who really care either way. Double edged sword, really, having something wide open for community editting. Minkythecat (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And that is probably why I've spent most of this afternoon apologising to four or five distressed biography subjects, including one whose article had been turned into a hatchet job. None of this is in a vacuum. Anyway, I am signing off for the night. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If the articles have simply been deleted, there is really no damage done at all. Ask JzG to undelete them one by one (or as small groups) and transfer them into your user-space. Add some references that show notability - if OHA hockey is widely covered, you can easily do that, right? How many people come to the games? Half the town, just the moms and dads? Were any coaches choked to death by outraged parents? (That does happen:(
This is an encyclopedia, not a phone book. Don't worry about what other stuff is in there at this moment, concentrate on why your stuff has it's own reason to be here, all by itself. And accept that each and every OHA team just might not fit in an encyclopedia. Neither should every pro-wrestler or American Idol contestant or Pokemon character, hopefully we'll get to those too. Franamax (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick favour

Can you take a look at Ian Blair please? From what I can see, virtually everything apart from the "Education and early career" is negative information, and it's possibly one of the least neutral BLPs I've seen. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No, and to be honest you should be equally willing to do this kind of thing, and holler for the cavalry if it gets resisted. If there ever was a time when it was acceptable to use Wikipedia as an attack site, it vanished a long time ago. You seem to me to have sound instincts, so have the confidence to act on them, especially where living individuals are concerned. There is a difference between boldness and throwing your weight around; I may be a bit on the latter side myself, but boldness in enforcing rigorous NPOV on biographies is wholly admirable. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, from a quick review of this edit, you removed too much. And your edit summary was inflammatory. Next time, could you consider removing only the very worst bits, and then discussing the rest? The Jean Charles de Menezes bit, in particular, received widespread coverage at the time, and led to calls for Ian Blair's resignation. It is not acceptable to have the article not mention this. Your talk page post was good, but please can you use neutral edit summaries like "stubbing for BLP discussion - see talk page"? Just saying "Disgusting" is not informative and leaves those who aren't as au fait with the system floundering. Carcharoth (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mick

I have Mick on my watchlist because we've been been discussing the List of Geordies AFD which I may take to DRV. I observe some activity on his talk page and see you and Nick threatening and blocking him. You both seem to be over-reacting since Mick was just likewise picking up things from his watch list. This sort of thing seems normal for active editors. For example, I just responded to a controversial AFD which you posted today. But this is just coincidence - I constantly patrol AFD and comment on anything that catches my eye. Please lighten up - an indefinite block is not appropriate for talking to someone unless there is a specific injunction surely? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


More care needed

I go through my watchlist oldest change first. If you had explained such a drastic change before making it, it wouldn't have looked like vandalism to me. As it was I saw an edit change called "disgusting" removing most of an article prone to vandalism and put two and two together. Then I saw the other stuff. Also having an id of JzG and signing talk page posts as Guy can also cause some confusion as two who is doing what.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah, well, "too much" is a matter of opinion. It needs a complete rewrite to comply with WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • At the moment, it doesn't comply. It is a useless stub. I would start re-adding stuff that needs to be covered, but that will be a long slow process, and the article won't look NPOV and BLP compliant until it is finished. Talk pages and user page draftss are also visible to the public and show up on search engines, so they have the same problems. Do we have to write BLPs offline now and discuss by e-mail? Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your agenda?

You have removed the songs listed on List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Why have you decided to undo the work of many editors? If you look at the very many lists on Wikipedia, you will see that the large majority have no independent citations. So can you tell me what is your agenda in attacking this article, please. It would be more polite to open a debate on the talk page, so I request that you restore the article and open the debate.Tony (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Tony

  • I refer you to the above answer. We do not include unsourced controversial material just because someone likes it or thinks it might be sourced one day. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Station Jim

Are you local enough to go to Slough Museum or the railway station and ask for a bit more background? What I am particularly interested in is the date of the inscription. It reads like something that was written soon after he died, and hence was published soon after 1896 (by being placed on public display). This is to allay concerns about me having quoted the inscription in full in the article. The other thing is that, in the absence of a dated claim of authorship, it is probably public domain anyway, but I could still integrate the material into the section and reference the museum's photo of the inscription. But I'd still like to clarify this final point. Maybe e-mailing them would be better, and in any case I might be more "local" than you! Other than that, there doesn't seem much more to say, so sadly, contrary to Colonel Warden's comment, this probably won't end up like Greyfriars Bobby. But I must remember to put the redirect (after the DRV closes) in that famous animals category. My personal bias here is that I was so fascinated by the display and the story that I absent-mindedly got on the wrong train after taking the photo! Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, though not in the next few weeks. I live in Reading and pass through Slough on the way to and from London. I'd need to leave early and stop at Slough one day, which is easy to do at the right time. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hibernian

I believe that Hibernian is edit warring for some reason unknown at least to me. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Hibernian User:Hibernian - Could you take a look at the reverts he has done on Technocracy Technate material? The articles such as Energy Accounting and the article Technocracy? He has also reverted a bunch of others to point toward a movement. In the energy accounting article he writes about things not related in any literature I have seen about outdoor museums. Hibernian wrote the article originally I believe. It contains information as said that has no reflection in the stated ideas of Technocracy Incorporated. I notice also that he has restored the recently deleted NET material to Technocracy movement including the links to their website. skip sievert (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have done all of the above and have explained my reasoning many times over the last year. You think I'm edit warring for ""some reason unknown"? I think Skip you know full well the reasons by now since we've been arguing about them for nearly a year. Now if JzG, or guy, or whatever, will come to the talk page I'd be happy to flesh out the arguments, for him. --Hibernian (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you yourself JzG put up NET as an article to be deleted as was done and removed links to them... how is it that all the information has just been put back in another article including all of the links that do not work and even the wiki link to the article that no longer exists ? Is that a dispute or just one editor doing as they please (Hibernian) ? What I am wondering is this... could you either page protect after I revert these articles or could you block Hibernian for a while and suggest that one editor does not make a consensus ... or something else besides suggesting Dispute resolution. Why ? I do not think that Hibernian will compromise or be deterred from his present course if past history is any indication. skip sievert (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider it an external battle. I am only interested in getting objective and factual material in the articles. My role was to bring this to your attention. It appears to me that this group has just put up a sock puppet account for reverting purpose only. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ice-t99&action=edit Editing User talk:Ice-t99 - This has been done in the past also. Please do not block me. Please examine the edit by the new account user above in this article Technocracy

FYI

I asked for advice in WP:AN/I about your use of BLP watch.

In reply someone suggested I review WP:CANVASS. At first glance it looks like your use of BLP Watch, may not comply with the recommendations of that guideline.

Always keep the message neutral, and leave a note on the discussion itself that you sent out friendly notices. Editors who like to be informed about Wikipedia discussions can add the "Friendly notice" userbox to their user page.

I have something I want to say to you.

In the Ajam {{afd}} the nominator made repeated baseless suggestions that my motives and honesty should be questioned.

I want to state clearly and unambiguously that I have done my best to comply with all the wikipedia's policies and guidelines at all times.

If someone convinced you differently, if someone convinced you I was a disruptive influence, I urge you to consider the possibility that you were misled.

I won't claim I may not have made the very occasional lapse, but I think, in general, I have done a very good job.

I feel like you are treating me like someone who has already exhausted his WP:AGF. Geo Swan (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You are talking here about a mechanism that is used by a number of people who are highly active in monitoring for long-term WP:BLP violations, to watch debates that are related to BLPs and risk (from past experience) degenerating into the same kinds of issues that beset the articles. It is as neutral as you can get: name and vanue. I disagree with you about individual Gitmo detainees, and that is just one of those things. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry. I strongly disagree with you. We are all volunteers. Normally ordinary wikipedian can expect any other wikipedian to read the main space contributions, or their talk page comments. But you chose to put on your administrator hat, and take on the responsibility to fairly read all sides, and make a fair and accountable ruling.
  • It is totally unreasonable for you to expect me to comply with a "BLP climate" if you can't articulate how that "BLP climate" differs from my understanding of the actual wording of the policies in question.
  • Your comment above, and the one you made immediately before you made your own nomination are pretty clear that you do not recognize an obligation to be accountable for your rulings. That is very unfortunate.
  • Take off your administrator hat, and you get to tell me you don't have time to make a first attempt to explain yourself. But, if you act as an administrator I feel sure you have an obligation to make your rulings accountably.
  • I don't make rulings, no admin does. We do stuff, including doing our best to interpret consensus, but while we can do some things non-admins can't, there is, by long-standing agreement, no hierarchy. The current BLP climate is that people known for only one thing will now normally be covered in an article on the event, not the person. This has been the case for some time. I don't think you are evil or abusing Wikipedia or anything, I just think you're documenting the Guantanamo situation in the wrong way; these articles are functionally identical to Amnesty International campaign pages, a list of the Bad Things that The Man has done to X. The Bad Things are notable, the victim is almost always not. The most compelling argument for not having separate articles is the amount of redundancy; the US government has been equally abusive in each case. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy, why you think that the captives are notable for one event is what I really can not understand. They engaged in various events in the near east, and various later things happened to them. they did not all have the same experiences, or the same treatment. The US Govt was probably in some cases more outrageously unfair than in others. Some of them probably did do the things they are accused of; some of them didn't; and what they are accused of is different in each case. Not even the treatment at GB has been identical for all of them. The treatment during the hearings has not been equal either. You are reducing the matter to an oversimplification--and the effect of this sort of oversimplification is to permit people to more easily hide from acknowledging the unpleasant parts of reality--a view best exemplified in some other BLP cases as "just another murder" DGG (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, the pages read like Amnesty International campaign pages documenting the litany of abuses perpetrated by the US government. While I'd happily join the letter-writing campaign on Amnesty's behalf, since I think these are indeed egregious abuses, they are not significantly different from captive to captive. There are no biographical sources out there for pretty much any of them. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

anon IP sockpuppet back at Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

Hi. Back on Nov. 13, you protected the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program article, because of anon IP activity; the same editor is back, pulling the same basic stunt. All the anon IPs originate in the same place, and are pretty clearly the work of a single editor, who seems hell-bent on making this program come across as a controversy. To date, I still have never seen a third-party citation to indicate that there is a controversy here; as far as I can see, it's a non-notable Colorado sport fishing organization's private gripe, and I'm quite close to removing ALL references to "controversy" presently indicated in the text. I won't be able to make any such changes stick unless the page is given some measure of protection. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I left him yet another lengthy explanation, pointing out WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOCK - I sincerely doubt it will help, but... Dyanega (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition to BLP somewhere... or just WP:CLUE?

While working on the Ashida Kim article, I just thought of a pithy bit that might help in some of these BLP matters... perhaps we should work it into a policy/guideline/cluebat somewhere, or just file it in the memory banks. There's a good rule of thumb for BLPs - if you have to do a public records search to find something out about someone, it doesn't belong in their Wikipedia biography. FCYTravis (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that we could have, for policies like BLP, an "application guidance" page that tells people how it translates into Clue-based application. But since the hard of Clue are always the problem, that may fix nothing. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Milton Pitts

I noticed that you recently revised the birth and death dates for Milton Pitts. Could you provide any documentation for this change? I based the original dates on the cited newspaper and magazine accounts listed in the reference section. Best, Terence7 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Trombino

Hi Guy! Thanks for chiming in on the Mark Trombino page. But you say it's poorly sourced, but there is an audio clip of the interview on the source: it's a primary source. On top of that, Triple J is the biggest independent radio station in Australia (and one of the biggest in the world). I can't understand how this source could be any more reliable.Mikenosilly (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • We should not be drawing controversial material biographies form primary sources. Reliable non-trivial independent secondary sources are necessary to establish context. And the subject complained. So as far as I'm concerned, that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand what is wrong with primary sources, surely it's basic comprehension that they are a more reliable source of fact. Of course a primary source in the form of a voice recording proves only that the words were said, not that they are true. But in this context, their truth is irrelevant, according to Wiki policy, as they are accurately sourced and attributed.
Regardless of that, Triple J is NOT a trivial source! And they are independent! As well as being a 24 hour radio station, they publish a magazine, produce television programs and news on their website, including interviews with many, many artists (triplej.net.au). Triple J is surely one of the most reliable and respected Australian sources of music news and information, and has been for more than 30 years. Please look into the source, it is not trivial or biased, as you suggest.
It bemuses me that an interesting, relevant, well sourced (primary and secondary), and clearly attributed piece of information cannot be listed in the page. This is beurocracy gone mad, and it blatantly goes against the Wiki policy relating to biased statements. Please look into the source, it should not be dismissed.
Can you please tell me why you are not applying this policy: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements Mikenosilly (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP is an important policy, and per that policy we do not include disputed material based on primary sources, because it relies on our judgment of the significance of the source and its content. We rely instead on reliabel independent secondary sources, whihc tell us how the world at large views the subject. Anything else is a recipe for POV-pushing and nightmares, as it would eb open to anybody to pick up every bit of crap about someone and include it direct from the primary source. It's fine to use primary sources for uncontroversial matters of fact, but not as the major source for something controversial. No evidence has been provided that this is the general view of what it's like to work with Trombino. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from. But I still don't understand how this fits with the "Neutral POV" policy which says that a biased statement can be included if it is correct and can be verified. To quote it: "The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true." Surely an artist who has worked with Trombino is a "subject-matter" expert, and the way the quote was presented in the article showed it was an opinion and did not claim it was true.
Also, the quote is a general view of what it's like to work with most producers. Very few producers, especially with big budgets and big acts, will track more than one instrument at a time.Mikenosilly (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said, you'd need a reliable independent secondary source to show that this applies particularly to Trombino and is not either a single dispute between him and one artist or, conversely, generic and applicable to most people in this role. No such sources have been presented. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But why?! As long as the quote is attributed and accurate, then it doesn't even matter if it's true or not. It says so blatantly here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements

How do we get another opinion on this?Mikenosilly (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You got one. What you seem to be suggesting is that you keep asking until you get the answer you want. Don't. Instead, finde reliable independent secondary sources that support the significance of your desired content in context. Otherwise you violate WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Technocracy

Hi JzG, sorry that you had to wander into the Technocracy mess. Someone is calling for you on Talk:Technocracy movement#Recent changes.-Wafulz (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PermissionOTRS-ID

Template:PermissionOTRS-ID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (blatantly stolen from the msg Kelly left on my talk) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

user at it again

Dear Guy, User:Cult Free World is posting court-ruled libelous and defamatory information on this and this page. Two courts in India have ruled The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory. (http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/ilr-2004/Jan-Feb2004.pdf, page 4, #5)

I've tried explaining about OR and how court cases are primary sources and need secondary sources to interpret them, but he continues to pick and choose from testimony in the case instead of focusing on the ruling.

I've filed a notice here. This user quieted down a bit until the MFD was closed (and it was closed when the article was in a content-neutral state); then, he immediately reverted to his OR and libel version. Help would be appreciated. Renee (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regina Rams

As it happens, the problematic content in the instant article was added 25 March and removed 6 April, before, in fact, you redirected. That the article is unsourced is, of course, a separate issue, and a redirection on the grounds of an article's being unsourced might, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, be reverted, with discussion to follow if appropriate. Because the version from which you redirected contained, unless I'm being especially inattentive, nothing that contravened BLP and suffered only from the defect of being unsourced (and certainly, even without sources, makes a very fine case for its meriting a standalone article, as against a redirect to University of Regina#Sports), I'd wonder whether you might be inclined to revert to that revision (or, if you happen to believe that a redirect remains appropriate for other reasons, to unprotect, in order that other editors differently inclined might themselves revert, with reprotection in order, of course, should vandalism of the "What he lacks in height..." variety persist, or even should we, in view of the OTRS query, deem protection against the insertion of problematic material to be now appropriate). I'll likely pursue DRV (even as this isn't a deletion, DRV is probably the place at which a discussion about it should be situated) if there is not some agreeable solution to be reached here, but I'm surely in no hurry, so you should feel free, of course, to let me know at your leisure.

Unrelatedly, and much less verbosely, I should, as someone who has, more than once, espoused (cordially, at least) the view that the net effect on the project of your participation (at least qua admin) is negative, and who has had occasion to disagree with you about many things, say that I found this to be very, very nicely and persuasively put. Cheers, Joe 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I redirected it because not only was it unsourced, it was being used to attack a living individual, and it lacked any assertion of independent notability. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, but only one paragraph was being used to attack a living individual, and it was removed before you redirected. University sports teams, at least those associated officially with national governing bodies, are, AFAIK, presumptively notable, and the article certainly asserted notability sufficient to overcome traditional editorial concerns that would lead to redirection or deletion. If you deem full protection (with some reasonable expiry date) to be necessary to prevent further insertions of BLP-violative material, I don't see that I'd object, but certainly the article, having had the BLP-problematic content removed (and, for that matter, having shown no history of being a repeated target for BLP vandalism) and having continued, even in the absence of sources, to make out a facial case for notability, should not be protected as a redirect. Am I correct to take it that you're not inclined to revert the redirection and that, if I continue to disagree, I should take the issue to DRV (for lack, I guess, of a better place to solicit the views of the community)? Thanks, Joe 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the United States

Guy, I do not know if you were the one who moved it to this title and why, but many of the article's established editors feel the move was done based on one user's BOLD action. I looked at the article's log and it only shows that you protected the article from moving. Are there some edits missing in between, because you said that you deleted it first to make room for a move? Anyway, would it be possible to move it back to the original title, because we are having a problem with the topic of this article with the title being as it is now. Please read the objections to this title and the original move that the editors have raised on the article's talk page. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know either, if I did it was simply reversion of an undiscussed move. I have no interest in the subject. Requested moves would be the place to go, if you think you have consensus. I bet you don't have consensus, just the usual two entrenched camps, but I'm not going there right now. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you semi protest this Social network aggregation

The guy is CSD it when I told him AfD and it is an anon IP. I asked for protection but taking time and he trolling my page. Igor Berger (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Should I be asking for a block? Definitly a sock User:Angrysusan here under User:128.36.147.198 referenced, "I did AfD as you recommended" before he created his user id. Sorry to bring you this trival thing..:) Igor Berger (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm blind, can't see where there was a CSD? It was prodded... Is the above a sock? Someone, an IP, may well have then created an account - hardly a sock. Look at the talk page for the article in question. Igor seems to be showing WP:OWN qualities - can't see why he removed the AfD numerous times? Minkythecat (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
He did it as the anon IP.

DUDE! IT IS AN AFD, NOT A CSD. Angrysusan (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) - - you said above to naominate if for AFD, so I did. Now you're removing that tag. WHY?!?!? Angrysusan (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Igor Berger (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can see it was prodded -I thought, as a relative newbie, prod was for things not meeting criteria for speedy delete? Even so, why did you on numerous occasions remove the AfD tag on the page, Igor? Minkythecat (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I mixed up between prodded and CSD, but it cannot be speddy because of consensus established by two admins here Also I did not realize he changed it to AfD as I suggested. He must have tried to prode it speddy for 10 times, and the posts to my talk page 10 times. So I did not realize it he changed to AfD untill I saw your message. Thanks for the help. Igor Berger (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Igor, as much as I'd like to WP:AGF, you removed the AfD tag numerous times - not just once. The edit summaries by Angrysusan clearly referred on several occasions to it being AfD. Assuming good faith, all I can guess is that you got wound up seeing something happening to the article - as I've said, it's bordering on WP:OWN - and instant reverting. Just step back, participate in the AfD and generally chill. Minkythecat (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been made on a matter in which you were involved. You may add yourself as a party and comment if desired at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeal_of_commuity_ban_of_Iantresman. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy

Hi JzG. I re-edited this section in the physical therapy page. I have provided sources for this section. Please read my post on the discussion page[3] regarding this. Looking forward to your input. Thanks JlharrisDPT (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • And the first para had a source which failed to support the text, the second was unsourced and the third pretty trivial. Oh, and your obsession with this makes me think tat you are promoting your own discipline and hence financial interests. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, actually just trying to contribute to a subject I know a lot about. I have cited everything (now). Please let me know what you have questions about specifically (now). ThanksJlharrisDPT (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi JzG. I agree with your edits, but I tagged the material to try to give JlharrisDPT a chance to improve on his addition; otherwise, he'll just continue to add back citationless, COI stuff. For now, I'll just put the stuff you deleted on the article's talk page for JlharrisDPT's benefit. Thanks for your help, and please let me know if you have any ideas of how to assist this user better. --Eustress (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

Why was this list blanked? Just curious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dramahz

Sorry for the drama the other day. I have to stop watching Geraldo Rivera and Days of our lives..:) Igor Berger (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

the afd of Rock N Roll Worship Service

Hi, Guy. I've followed up to your question at this afd. You bring up good points about wp:music's intent. I can't speak for the intent (nor do I have any attachment to this group). I'm just trying to apply the criteria as it's currently written. As your edit history indicates that you are active in the wp:music discussions, this may be a good case to use as a starting point for seeing if the definition of "national music charts" need to be specified/clarified/restricted (not sure what the best word is) to indicate intent. Right now the word is (perhaps purposely) vague. Best wishes. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Msg to Guy

Hi. You recently nuked the WSEAS page (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:COIN#WSEAS). Since then, someone suggested I try my hand at writing a better draft in my own space, StaySeven/sandbox. I am happy to, but could you please restore the last useful version there (I mean put a copy in my sandbox, not restore the article to full status) so that I have some raw material to work with? Once I'm done with the draft, I will invite some more experienced users to take a look, and then follow whatever is the right procedure for re-including the page.

Thanks, StaySeven (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

calm down.

thanks for your unsolicited intervention, but nothing i said was out of line or contrary to policy. --emerson7 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that you consider posting to the admin noticeboards not to be solicitation. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up!

My word you [4] are right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Remote viewing and elsewhere

Hello Guy,

I hope you don't mind my posting on your page, but I'd like to formally ask you to stop being insulting and uncivil. Especially at this time on the Remote viewing talk page. Examples include referring to the paranormal or belief in it as "True Belief," and "twaddle," (which is insulting to anyone who might believe). Also, your telling me to "stop spitting in the soup" and to "stop trying to obscure this obvious" (emphasis added) as well as this sarcasm. I wouldn't mention it, but these kind of things create an unnecessarily hostile and unpleasant atmosphere for everyone, not just me- even in those cases where it's mainly directed at me.

Thanks ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ScienceApologist.2FJzG. John254 04:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • All that's missing is any attempt to resolve the content dispute. Oh, and of course it's a content dispute, so not amenable to arbitration. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved tag

On the AN/I section. I removed it, as I think people are still commenting. I certainly would like to see an explanation, as would, it appears, others. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think somebody else had the same idea, so I was edit conflicted on AN/I as I wrote this note. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy, we need less drama, more experts. And premature archiving never creates less drama, you must have noticed that by now.... --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We need more experts, not more "experts". Think user:Jon Awbrey. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear God, yes. But even the sane ones tend to be older and more accustomed to talking at length without being interrupted, so the AfD in question was guaranteed to, first, get them riled, and second, drive them away.... --Relata refero (disp.) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I have dealt with some on OTRS. It can also be extremely difficult to get them to accept that academic publishing is not like Wikipedia - orignal research is good in academia, and citing personal communications from respected experts is perfectly acceptable. Plus, crap is simply ignored or excised, not documented as an "alternative theory". Guy (Help!) 21:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You have mail. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

-phyte

Hi. I'm trying to track down the transwikied content of -phyte and am having trouble (not the wiktionary page but the content that was here and now isn't, and should be findable at transwiki but isn't). I see from page histories that you had some involvement in the transwikiing, so thought you may be able to help. Thanks in advance. SP-KP (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Follow-up - could I be a real nuisance and ask you to track down zoo-, -zoan, myco- and -mycete as well? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

a helpful thing to do

It was bound to happen. Only letting you know I think it was the helpful thing to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I reviewed a lot of edits and concluded that this is someone who is probably unable to work harmoniously here due to irreconcilable philosophical differences. Experience shows that racists cause and experience much friction on Wikipedia. We are not good at accommodating bigotry. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Your blocking of user: Piercetheorganist was well deserved and long overdue! I was exasperated by his constant and sometimes very subtle pushing of a blatantly racist agenda. I appreciate you taking the action that you did! cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for spending so much of your own time on my case when you didn't have to. Realist2 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

God on earth, they are still talking about me at ANI, ill be famous in days at this rate, my talk page has seen more traffic this week than in an entire year. Realist2 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha sounds like a pain stacking job, i will leave you in peace, we might cross paths again, hope under better circumstances, this is a wierd way to spend my 9001th edit at wiki. Realist2 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lerner

Please see my comment here. Even if you disagree with me, it does absolutely no harm to refactor your comment so I hope you will do so. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the US

Can you check the start of this edit:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_and_the_United_States&diff=205625876&oldid=205533853

You've reverted the content of the first three paragraphs in a way that removed useful links and typo fixes. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo in World War II

Guy, in total 10 million civilians died in Japan from firebombing 70 cities and the two nuclear bombs with many radiation deaths after the event. User_talk:Igorberger#Pic You do not consider this as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States Igor Berger (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Not in the context of the time and a state of total war then existing, not I don't. I consider the Nagasaki bomb an atrocity (Hiroshima was enough) but I do not apply 21st century rationales and hindsight to what was beyond question an act of of war. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Greif article

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're doing. These are references directly linked to the article and are not spam. They are not 'selling' anything. These references, upon re-write, will be incorporated into the body of the article via citations. A Sniper (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Technocracy movement

An editor put back the links you took out in external links and put this statement in the Technocracy movement ( In addition, the Network of European Technocrats aims for the creation of a European Technate, although the group has not yet finalised the area of this entity (most likely, other areas then just Europe would be needed ). Would you mind editing this article again to perhaps get rid of the extraneous links again and delete the NET material ? skip sievert (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just went ahead and changed it. skip sievert (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Well the same editor put the NET stuff back in and also the extraneous links that you took out.. back in again. Technocracy movement. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Technocracy_movement&diff=205662793&oldid=205657424 Technocracy movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia He is telling me not to edit because he is going to just put the NET stuff back in and the multiple links to the same site. skip sievert (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your modification in de:Impaled Nazerene

Sorry, I don't know why this metal-magazine is on the spam-list now. The link is used as a reference. So, please, unless you got a better link, leave the reference there. --Gripweed-de (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Remote viewing

This is to inform you that I have filed a request for informal mediation on the article Remote viewing, and named you as a party. Best, ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick T. McHenry

The part fo the data that cause the page lock was the blog allegations that McHenry was somehow responsible for 3 deaths in the Green Zone... everything elase was accyratly sourced and noteworthy as itwasreportedby several news sources... please revert the article to this version. Otherwise, you've removed properly cited information.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes... I know that... in fact I've often had to remind people of that... I mean it was cited with a valid source.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You did read the version I pointed to right? Are you suggecting that www.carolinapoliticsonline.com is an invalid source?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Guy

Hi there! I was contemplating usurping the username "Guy" after I found that it had no contributions. Upon investigating further, I found that you redirected the Talk Page here. Can I ask why? Thanks! -- JTHolla! 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not use that as your username, then? -- JTHolla! 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Alright, rock on. -- JTHolla! 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Spam blacklist

Hi, I just saw this edit of yours and was wondering what the reason was for it since, up until now, I've never heard of a spam blacklist on Wikipedia. Can you clue me in? Is there a problem with the linked site or something? Cheers, Hux (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

sup

Assuming it survives the current AfD, that state terrorism 'article' will be a lot easier to improve, considering how many people just got banned for sockpuppetry: [[5]] Jtrainor (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Using EMediaLive as a source for Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD

Hi. Your recent edits ([6] [7] [8]) removed useful sources for those articles, because you considered them to be spam. I introduced some of those references, and I disagree with your assessment.

Referencing a commercial site multiple times is not automatically spam. Wikipedia policies don't advice against using commercial web sites as sources for an article.

It might be that "The Authoritative Blu-ray Disc FAQ" (hosted on the same domain) is a self-published source, which would require caution, but I don't think that applies to the EMediaLive site itself. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 09:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist "oops"

Looks like you hit the wrong button [9]. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kinder, gentler approaches

Regarding this, calling people "spiteful shit-stirring weasels" may not be the most effective approach, regardless of what you may think of them. It just plays into their hands, doesn't it? Hope that's helpful advice. ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, we may not be friends (I have no ill will), and you may think the same of me as you think of Cla68 for all I know, but in my view you should apologize. Wikipedia has a policy of civility to allow editors who may not like each other still to work together. You don't have to like anyone on Wikipedia, but your comment was probably the greatest breach of that policy I have seen, while all deleting it really does is prevent Cla68 (or others) from responding. You should at least apologize for breaching the policy in my view, and assure that you will not do this again. I didn't say this yesterday because I was hoping you would have time to consider it. Mackan79 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I will apologise to Cla68 when he apologises to Jimmy Wales, Durova, David Gerard and others for calling them liars by going to the press with a story that flatly contradicted everything they had told him about that situation. I have that pencilled in as expected on the 11th of Never. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you have both suggested a lack of candor from the other in ways that are generally considered acceptable. Your comment yesterday goes well beyond that. People should be able to disagree with each other and argue with each other without being attacked in that way. Mackan79 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My comment yesterday was an ill-tempered response to gratuitous trolling a sanctimonious pest, and I removed it almost immediately (actually as soon as the database was unlocked). I will not pretend that my opinions have changed, though. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Would "sanctimonious pest" be more civil? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Le mot juste, thank you. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil Clark

Sorry Guy, I am "tired of silly drama on Wikipedia" too. Your complaint about my most recent edits to the Neil Clark page took you two weeks to make despite your regular work on WP. Not quite in line with the issues supposed seriousness is it? Philip Cross (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from adding one intemperate phrase to the edit history of the Clark article over a year ago, I do not see what I am doing to bring WP in to disrepute by editing his WP article. Unless Clark is of such importance that his e-mail missives must be obeyed. Philip Cross (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony Sandel

Hi, he persists in using personal attacks--calling me a vandal==in spite of repeated warnings from Mysteryquest. What should I do about this? Thanks for any help or advice,-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_works_for_the_theatre_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents&diff=prev&oldid=205541455

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Sandel#List_of_works_for_the_theatre_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents&diff=206005438&oldid=205760810



Question again

So, may I ask why metallian is a bad site or spam? I don't use it myself, so I wouldn't know, but I checked it out briefly and it seemed fine. Just curious. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Same for me. Is there any reason besides that some IPs throw the link through various articles? --Gripweed-de (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As noted, see m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/metallian.com. It's not usable as a source (despite being cited several times as a ref) and there's no evidence it's valuable enough as a "me-too" link to justify the spamming. I have received expressions of relief from spam handlers on other projects that this has now been stopped. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Any site that his a disclaimer saying "Metallian provides all contained information only for entertainment purposes. We make no guarantees regarding the information provided" is all you need to know about linking to it, regardless of spamming. One Night In Hackney303 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Move log

Its great this now appears in our watchlists. And good one. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Guy, I have seen that you have stated you work OTRS issues, but you're not listed at m:OTRS/personnel...is that page out of date? Also, would you please consider adding yourself to Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers to make it easier for people needing contact with en Wikipedia OTRS volunteers to find you? Kelly hi! 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What/where is blacklist?

In Lew Rockwell talk you removed part of link with edit summary mentioning black list but wp:blacklist only mentioned spam. helpful for new and even older editors who haven't learned everything about wikipedia to explain or at least give appropriate link to this black list. thanks. Carol Moore 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Can you explain this edit?

Hello, can you explain this edit? Thanks! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I am wondering why that particular site is blacklisted, what "linksearch" is, where the list of blacklisted sites is, and why they should not have links that go to them. I'm just wondering, as I don't really care whether it has a link in it or not. I play a Conn 11Dr. I don't know why the Punto article isn't a FA yet. I don't think I've done any editing at that article yet. Most of my edits are on topics other than music. Thanks.JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A website tends to get blacklisted when it has no particular value to the encyclopedia but gets repeatedly placed on article pages. An external link needs to be reliable and informative, and to contribute something of encyclopedic value which the article itself doesn't already have. See WP:EL for the policy, and WP:SPAM and WP:WPSPAM to get a handle on what a problem external links are.
There is an en:wiki spam blacklist and a meta blacklist. Linksearch means this page where you can see what sites are linked from within the wiki. Hope this helps! Franamax (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article in userspace

Why did you delete the article Leftist-Islamist Alliance from my own userspace? You have no right to do that, so please restore. /Slarre (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not "move it to movespace". It was created in mainspace before I moved it to my userpage. I moved it to my userpage to have a copy of it, so I could work on it to become a decent article under a new title or integrated into an existing article. What policies are you referring to that says you can't keep copies of old articles on your userpage? /Slarre (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say, I can't quite understand why you deleted that page; when an article is AfD'd, I was under the impression that it was acceptable for an editor to userfy the content in order to work on it and add references, with the aim of eventually moving an improved version of the article back into mainspace. (I've seen this done before, at any rate.) I agree that the article, as was, did not meet notability guidelines for neologisms, but User:Slarre seemed to be making a good-faith attempt to improve it. Apologies, of course, if I've misunderstood the situation. WaltonOne 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It very much depends ont he reason for deletion: poorly written articles on borderline or good subjects are certainly game for user space rework, but as you'll see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leftist-Islamist Alliance this was just a piece of political advocacy sourced from Free Republic and the like. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just your opinion. As you can see from the discussion, several users seem to think that the content is encyclopedic enough and worth expanding/improving under a new title or merged into another article, that's why I moved it to my userpage to try to improve it. It should also be noted that the article was previously nominated for deletion and was then voted to be kept. You have also not pointed to the guidelines/policies you seem to be relying on that says admins have the right to delete non-inflammatory content from other users' pages without even notifying or asking the user before. I ask you kindly once again to restore the article, otherwise I'll have to take this to another level. /Slarre (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Several? Oh, you mean three. And it's only your opinion that it's non-inflammatory. Actually, if that genuinely is your oipinion then I foresee trouble. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So what's 'inflammatory' in the article then? /Slarre (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ask a passing Muslim, I'm sure they'll help you out with that. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I was asking you, since it was you who made the assumption. /Slarre (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Guy) I agree (looking both at the AfD and at the deleted text of the article in Slarre's userspace) that the article did not meet WP:NEO, and obviously Free Republic is not a reliable source; thus I completely agree with the consensus on that AfD. However, I also think it's worth noting that the version in Slarre's userspace did cite two published sources; that isn't enough on its own to meet the notability threshold, of course, but it does suggest that the term is actually in use, and therefore that there's a possibility of writing a decent article at some point if enough acceptable sources can be found. Even if this won't be possible, it might also be possible to merge some of the content into another article (as a representation of a particular viewpoint). I agree 100% that the article, as was, doesn't belong in mainspace, but wouldn't it be acceptable to let him store it temporarily in his userspace to let him work on it? WaltonOne 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I noticed you removed the archive links of three references on three Degrassi: The Next Generation articles yesterday, which pointed to pages at freerepublic.com. In the summary, you put unlink copyvio per WP:C; I read the page but see no explicit mention of the site or why any like it cannot be used. What then, is the problem with the website?

Also, when you removed the link, you messed up the formatting of the entire reference by not removing the archive date:

"McKay, John (2004-07-19). "American teen channel delays abortion-themed Degrassi episode". National Post. Retrieved 2007-09-10."

Please be aware of this in the future. Regards, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Free Republic is a polemical web forum, not a reliable source. Content sourced form Free Republic falls into two categories: unreliable source, remove; or copy of reliable source with no assertion of permission, remove. See WP:RS, WP:C and WP:EL. Free Republic is going on the spam blacklist, long overdue, but as a courtesy to those whose edits would be interrupted I am unlinking the site first. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't realise it's contentious nature. Hopefully the Wayback Machine will archive the pages instead at some point. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, it's a very common error and easily made. we have a lot of links to new stories scraped by other sites without permission, Free Republic is far from being the only offender. See also L.A. Times v. Free Republic. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic

Sounds good to me! Just make sure that, when you delete those sources, you aren't creating poorly-formatted nonsense text. That doesn't improve Wikipedia, either, and was more my concern. Good luck and take care! Aepoutre (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess other people are wondering about this too. I have a different issue -- freerepublic.com may be a "polemical site" or whatever, but many of the references that are being deleted are to copies on the FR site of reports in the legitimate media. Wouldn't it be better to try to salvage the underlying original link, rather than simply blanket delete all of these? Perhaps another way of asking this is: why is it important to do all of these at once, rather than highlighting them for gradual improvement? --Tom Ketchum 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Ketchum (talk • contribs)

I'll have to ditto this point, but suggest that editors use or replace the freerepublic references with the original or underlying reference that a freerepublic article is quoting or using as a source (provided that the root source is reliable). Sf46 (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That would require an editor verifying the source. If the "root" source is reliable, then that source needs to be checked for referencing. If an unreliable sources claims to repeat a reliable source, it's still an unreliable source. Vassyana (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Fort Qualls

I found several references for Fort Qualls using the archives of Google News at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Fort+Qualls%22 --Eastmain (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Mike Huckabee

I have reverted this edit, removing ONLY the Freep citation. Please post a link to where WP policy states that the Washington Post is a bad RS? ThuranX (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is how you sidestep a block

Recently, you blocked 75.57.196.81 (talk · contribs), an anon with an IP banner for being a "Disruptive and disputatious editor)". That anon subsequently adopted a new anon IP address (quie likely simply restarted his modem and received a new dynamic IP address) and began editing under as 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs). As there was also a prior caveat to keep the IP banner identifying the IP range as well as an apparent avoidance of the block you placed, I filed an AN/I complaint in regards to the matter. With apologies, I meant to notify you immediately, but was sidetracked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, were you planning on commenting on the block you placed on the anon user who then sidestepped it by rebooting their modem and start editing from a new one? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir, In the section of AN/I in which you originally banned me - it was Arcayne that was severely admonished for the following edit in which he removed my entire post after I changed the tag on a thread I had opened in accordance with the written instructions: [10] No one was aware of your action as the thread was Archived shortly after your post. The thread which you posted in regarding Arcaynes threatening of me appeared to conclude with an edit by ThuranX at 01:57, 16 April. My IP changed and I had confirmed edits from a new IP at 14:07, 16 April. I was apparently blocked at 21:35, 16 April by you. I am now charged with Block Evasion by Arcayne and he is now engaged in a private effort to have me banned. As I have stated I do abide by the rules here and will continue to do so, I have refrained from all edits except those specifically allowed by the rules to post your page and AN/I. I am not comfortable with Arcaynes continued relentless obsession with me - and I am certainly not comfortable with him going to you after failing to harm me through AN/I - he has an open complaint against me regarding this allegation of Block Evasion. [11]

The allegation of Block Evasion is untrue. I would further defend myself against your initial coloration of me by pointing out that Arcayne has colonized my Talk page and will not allow me to Archive his threatening posts to me - My talk page is a picture painted by Arcayne. I am also fully with community consensus in the dispute over allowing a films credits to be cited and referenced in a films InfoBox. As a point of fact, Arcayne failed to enlist a single voice in support of his effort to overturn community consensus, he has tried to find support to overturn community consensus in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[12][13][14][15] [16]different sections on WP:RS, taken it before WP:OR, efforts to enlist support were made on numerous user talk pages; it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous distinct editors and then immediately Reverted by Arcayne on Ten Separate Occasions and he has now opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style! WP:MOS[17]

I am sorry to have troubled you for your time over this but things are not necessarily as Arcayne has painted them to be. 75.58.32.90 (talk)

Just to be clear, and Arcayne knows this to be true as it was brought up in his failed attempt on AN/I to ban me for this very same Block Evasion: My IP address changed before you blocked me.75.58.32.90 (talk)


With respect, the anon suggesting here - posting on your talk page - that he isn't evading a block - seems odd. If he was blocked the first time, and was made aware of the block and continued editing, that's block evasion. That he started up not one but two different IP addresses after being blocked that the second address the one commenting here is one of them. I don't really know how to respond to the irony of the situation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Libertyinfo still blocked?

Hi, is this still in place? OptimistBen (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The block log says yes. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing URLs...

I don't understand why you removed the URL -- your edit. Either a source is useless or it is of some use. Removing the link substracts. I reverted and added a link to a NYWT article. Nephron  T|C 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find a reliable source for the info at the time-- so I used it as a source. Also, it is not up to Wikipedia to police COPYVIOs on Freep. If Freep is such a bad source just remove the whole thing... or better still-- look for a reliable source instead of deleting a point from which anyone could read a bit more and find a reliable source. I feel your edit had negative value-- if someone wants to read the (partially deleted) Freep source they have to invest time to find it.
Stated differently, I think a crappy source is made crappier if the reference is managled. Nephron  T|C 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Freerepublic link in T-44 article

Hello.

The link to Freerepublic site in T-44 article is a very valuable source for the said article. If a substitute will be found than it will be replaced but as of now the Freerepulic link is irreplaceable. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestion on what to do about this?

User:GundamsRus has the habit of following me around and "getting involved" in anything I do on the wiki, usually in an attempt to troll me-- he always will attempt to do the opposite of whatever I'm trying to accomplish. He also likes to make trolling comments on AfDs when I participate in them, such as [[18]].

I've complained about wikistalking on WP/ANI before, but the thread was archived with no admin attention. Jtrainor (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians page

Basically, whats up with that? I think speedy deletion was a bit brash, why did you delete that page without discussion? - Schrandit (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds dandy. So I don't jump the gun on anything - what would be your criteria, if any, for establishing acceptable significance? - Schrandit (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Userfied, WP:N and in particular the sourcing from WP:V and WP:RS is all that's needed: assertion of notability, backed by multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable independent secondary sources - profiles of the group in Village Voice, for example. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Gene Ray

Thank you for deleting the Gene Ray article; I just happened to notice it on my watchlist. That was needed. --Allen (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dab page

Yes, that would be fine. Singularity 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

Hey im still here, just to let you know, i thought maybe wiki still needed me, ive tried to put it behind me and have undergone a wiki face lift. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Yes, they most certainly do have lawyers! I find it fascinating that they were so quick to blank the page and complain. But I expect they are not that clever. If you could make any suggestions about what would be more neutral then I'd be grateful. Wikidea 21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • A history of the firm from some impeccably dull sources would be good - Forbes, Business Week, anything like that. Sources that have not even the faintest whiff of a political agenda. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've put the page back where it was. I trust nobody's going to delete it again without warning!!! I simply cannot find one good or neutral, business overview about the company. They apparently did an interview in 2004 on CNN for World Business Report, but I don't have it! It's a hard company to get information on, precisely because they want to be secretive. If you can find anything I'd be glad.
Can I ask you to delete this page for me now: User:Wikidea/The Burke Group. Thanks, Wikidea 13:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

American Criminals Category

Would you please review what's going on there? Checking out the talk page for Peter Yarrow (where I know you recently got rid of a link to Free Republic) and then the talk page for the American Criminals Category should tell you all you need to know. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this. David in DC (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

'Just noticed that the link to the most recent AfD discussion at the top of this page Talk:List_of_books_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors seems to be broken since your recent move. I'm not experienced enough to know how to restore it. Thanks for any help you can provide! SocJan (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! There is still a problem here: Talk:Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_fiction_(boys), possibly because of reversion to Brit spelling of "paedophilia" in article title? Also note change from "and" to "or" (a change I strongly favor). SocJan (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

user celon

Someone needs to block this guy. He is being disruptive, attacking other editors, edit warring, and has violated 3RV repeatedly: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/John_celona

Please help. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Association of British Drivers

Thanks for tagging this article. If you check the history you will see that I introduced many outside refs, most of them critical, but there were carefully deleted, leaving us where we are today. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Why am I not surprised? I can't really lay in there because ABDers think I am somewhere between Satan and the Antichrist due to my past disputes with one of their idols. Feel free to start an article RfC though - using ABD's own spin on things rather than what independent sources say will always be a problem. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit removed an external link to a news story because the link is to freerepublic. However the story itself is from a reliable source, so there's no reason it should not be linked just because it's mirrored at freep. I rolled back because undo ran into the blacklist. -- Zsero (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been filed involving you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Benjiboi:_appeal_of_topic_ban_on_Matt_Sanchez. Banjeboi 13:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Network of European Technocrats

JzG.. Isenhand editor also known as Andrew Wallace the NET director has put up what appears to be a complete copy of the previous article that was deleted via the Article for deletion. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Network_of_European_Technocrats Network of European Technocrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Network_of_European_Technocrats Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of European Technocrats. Is this a candidate for this http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Speedy_delete Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion ? if so could you please do that. This would appear to be an attempt at advertising a forum/blog done by the administrator of an organization. Being unfamiliar with protocol and proper procedure on this I have also given this information to a couple other admin editors. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Guy, i have added text as you requested for authentication traceback. This concerns Ms Gina Bold's page. Date of entry 21/04/08

BLP issue at pro-pedophile activism

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Patrick_Califia-Rice

Should Jack or I post on AN/I, or at BLP first? Tks for any advice about how to proceed,-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of Cafepress on talk pages

This is not a good thing to be doing indiscriminately. No offense, but I think this speaks for itself. --Kizor 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Spamlinks are spamlinks. There are lots of good folks using Cafepress (and some overtly evil ones); but links to commercial sites like that are out of place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Even Wikipedia branded spam is still spam. I'm sure Cafepress make money on it too, after all. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What? Unless the guy behind that talk:cleanup comment had some sort of hidden nefarious agenda to advertise Cafepress, he was not advertising but using the link to help his argument. Likewise the link here had a good reason for its presence. I'm not saying "don't remove advertising", but judging from the above links to Cafepress cannot be categorically deemed ads. --Kizor 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is this: if you're trying to clean up spam, excess links to spam sites in talk and other ancilliary pages make it harder to find in mainspace - and with cafepress, every click counts, as it were, because everything on cafepress is user-generated merchandising. You don't need the magic letters http:// in order to make it clear that a spam link is a spam link, it functions just as well for discussion purposes whether it works or not. In my view, cafepress links are right up there with Amazon affiliate spam. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Links' usefulness for discussion purposes does get hindered when they are neutered in a way that forces editors to copypaste while avoiding the clutter that is also left behind... are you saying that valid links to abused sites have to be removed in order to help removing the invalid ones from other namespaces?

Also: come on, this was just silly. --Kizor 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a spammer will find that a link shorn of its http:// is "neutered" but I don't think it hinders discussion in any meaningful way. But tell me, do you think that links to cafepress sites set up by fans and web forum members are an improvement to the encyclopaedia? And to take the example you link above, But under an Ultima Thule website button marked "Support" is [www.cafepress.com/ultimathule www.cafepress.com/ultimathule], where Ultima Thule branded merchadise is sold in a user-owned online shop - what more do we need to know in order to judge that? Guy (Help!) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) When they are used as reasonable elements in arguments, yes. That would be why I undid seven neuterings - out of several dozen program-assisted ones - while leaving the rest of them alone. Tell me, would it be acceptable to leave this minority alone and go whack the rest? --Kizor 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually about 80 unlinkings (neutering is just the teensiest bit judgmental, don't you think?). And in the end: it's spam. Spam, spam, spam, bloody spam. Why are you wasting time preserving links to spam? Guy (Help!) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I don't, I considered it a neutral technical term. Remember that uproar in the West Coast about computers having "master" and "slave" drives? I try to avoid that. Do suggest a better term if you don't want to use this one.

    Because the links to Cafepress that I'm interested in preserving have reasons to be here other than linking to Cafepress, which in my lexicon makes them not spam, and neutering them seems to do nothing but force editors to jump through an extra hoop. --Kizor 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Unlink, neuter. Neuter, unlink. Yes, I think I can tell which is more neutral, thanks. So: what was wrong wht the term I used, unlink? Oh, that's right, you prefer neuter. How about "emasculate"? That's even more technical. What a silly discussion, anyway. I'm trying to get the spam count down, that's all. Unfortunately I now have to triple check everything to make sure I'm not in a revert war for the holy principle of linking to a webshop. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dude. Unless you think that I was trying to insult you, why are we talking about the word? And if you did think that, I assure you that it would not be my style. I am as subtle as a brick. And it's late over here, so make that a brick with a rocket exhaust. --Kizor 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, late here too. Time to knock off for the night. I will stop hating spammers until tomorrow :o) Guy (Help!) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
CafePress was on one of my user pages because they sell Wikipedia T-shirts, etc. Wikipedia gets a share of the profits. Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And so does Cafepress. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Award notice

Have I given you a barnstar before? I can't remember.

The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarded to JzG for going above and beyond the call of rougeness to improve Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keithmb and Gina Bold

Since I assume that you are better informed about the situation than most of us would you please tell me if you know any reason why he is removing references used in the article for verification per policy? There is a fine line between allowing someone with a COI to fix controversial stuff and letting the same person remove references without so much as an edit summary. Cheers, EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Having quarrelled with you once on this general topic, I thought I ought to let you know I'm coming around [[19]].

I'm sorry the quarrelling, a while back, was so dramatic. David in DC (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD and cafepress?

Howdy, are you just concerned about the cafepress link on the userfied article? I have no issue with removing the link from the current version. Deleting the article will cause disruption. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, just in case my previous message got lost with the next. I am confused as to why you are nominating this article for deletion. It certainly needs a lot of work, and it is certainly not a terribly important article to the world, but it is certainly fixable and it means a great deal to me and my wife. In some silly way, this article is why we edit wikipedia. We have over 10,000 edits, are regular contributors to wikiprojects, cause no drama, we've had several bug fixes integrated into mediawiki, we've improved templates, done untold amounts of non-admin janitor work of the cataloging variety, helped settle content disputes without involving admins, etc.
One of the commenters here said something about wikipedia being too harsh on some people and not harsh on others. I guess it seems like that is happening here. I mean, I have limited time on the wiki (and poor Group theory suffers for it; it could have been a GA by now, and group (mathematics) would be an FA candidate not a GA candidate if I had the time). Trying to defend this poor little article from deletion takes some of that time, and makes wikipedia seem a lot less friendly.
The only thing I can see that could cause problems with the article until I actually have time to clean it up is that some crazy people find it on google or something (see the random "Talk" at the top of the page), and I think recently it was listed on Talk:Snowclone. The page was also linked on some cafepress maintenance page, which is what I figured had concerned you. It seems like all of those problems would be fixed if the page was basically blanked, with a nice under construction sign hung on it (and make sure that it is removed from all the maintenance categories).
At any rate, I'm happy to spend some short amount of time getting it to a nicer state, but I certainly can't get it to FLC any time soon.JackSchmidt (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It was deleted by consensus, and userspace is not a way of evading consensus. Rework is fine, but that was not being reworked to resolve the issues identified at AfD. See Wikipedia:USER#Copies of other pages. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dc76/project2

Hi, you have deleted this project page of mine. It contained some text that I wanted to work on, re-write and develop it, but did not find yet the appropriate time. It also took me much more time to get familiarized with the text there - despite the fact that I did not edit it, I was actually studying it. The content you have erased was previously an article that was accepted for deletion (not my article). I have asked the closing admin which has deleted the article, if I can try to work and improve it. He gladly said "yes" and he himself restored it to my userspace. I do understand that without serious work that text does not belong to WP mainspace, but please kindly accept that it requires much more time to radiaccaly edit such text. Even familiarizing oneself with all aspects takes more time, b/c all sources must be read, etc. Therefore I would like to kindly ask you to restore the page my /project2 page, please. If there are some edits you would like to do on that project page, you are and will be always welcome. However, given the fact that I was not done with it, I would very much appreciate if you could restore it. Thank you, yours, Dc76\talk 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You last edited it nearly a year ago. I can email you the content if you like, but Wikipedia is not for hosting forks of content. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Foe AfD

How did you search for this when you performed your pre-AfD searches? From what I could find from simple journal sources (the earliest one including the term dated from 1993), it's an extremely widely used word found in pretty much every article on astrophysics involving the measurement of the energy output of supernovae. What exactly led you to believe that it was a neologism? Celarnor Talk to me 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have access to Ebsco? It's a good journal searching system, but barring that, Google Scholar is a pretty good (and free/open for anyone to use) tool for looking for things like this. Celarnor Talk to me 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
PubMed is good for the life-sciences (link). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

cleanups

please undo your deletion of User talk:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin and User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin. Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't; I've dealt with Jaakobou before, and he's got a problem with POV. Sceptre (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I know. Abandoned userspace POV-forks, no encyclopaedic benefit, move along please, nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok. Let's try this again but this time in a more collaborative manner and hopefully, without the snide comments by editors who don't know the subject matter.

Please return "User:Jaakobou/Celebrations" for a time span of 5 days. I believe there were a few minor differences between that version and the current one. I'd like to make a comparison and fix whatever it is I could fix and move on to the other pages. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted on your page (above), I request permission to WP:TROUT you for repeated use of the words "POV" and "FORK" in some combination with "no encyclopaedic benefit" bad faith assumptions; and also for lack of conversation/inquiry.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that made me smile, anyway - the first sane reaction in the whole silly dramah thus far :-) Guy (Help!) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, we have MfD for a reason  :| -- Ned Scott 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know all the pages you've deleted. Maybe you can go over your deletion history for anything with the word "Jaakobou" in it and list them all here and then we'll quickly run them down? JaakobouChalk Talk 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think they were all undeleted already, and some were re-deleted. I don't see any that weren't already undeleted. What do you think is missing? You musty have a fair idea as you say it's hampering your Wiki activity. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure I'm missing my complaints file on Eleland and PalestineRememeberd, and also my Arbcom related page. I'm not sure what articles were deleted and I also think I accidentally wasn't watching all of them. Can you please list all the pages you deleted so I can be sure to where I'm standing with the material? JaakobouChalk Talk 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#technocracynet.eu

Hi. I'm following up on a request from an established user -- can you take a look at this one? Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

VG Cats - talk page

I'll start a new section on the talk page about it. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User Hibernian

..is using the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk:Technocracy movement page like a personal attack blog. Example : Skip quote: "I am not involved in TechInc or NET.". Wow! somebody actually got Skip to admit that he was kicked out of Technocracy Inc.! It took him about 2 years to admit it and come to the realisation, but better late than never I guess! What you didn't mention of-course, is that you were very embittered by that dismissal and have since attacked the organization in any way you can (including on Wiki) and even tried to setup a rival group. You've recently also attempted to insert the name of your "group" into Wiki articles. Hmmm no, no conflicts of interests there, I think Skips just a honest contributor with no hidden agenda at all (And if you can't guess, yes I’m being Sarcastic). --Hibernian end quote.

Could you do something? Could you edit that type of attack off the page ? skip sievert (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a report here as another editor advised. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Tomislav_II_of_Croatia.2C_4th_Duke_of_Aosta Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts - skip sievert (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

You're right. Responded my talk page. Basically, when told by parties that they don't need to include everything in the source, despite that being the only source they have, because it's "crufty", after seeing them in engage in similar insults to the previous editor who assessed the article, I lost my temper. If you see fit to indicate loss of admin status on that basis, say so and I will withdraw from that status. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Nah, you just got carried away. Happens to all of us. Feel free to delete the comments as read and understood, if you realise you did a silly thing then there's no need to rub anyone's nose in it. I only spotted it because I went to Geogre's page for something else, and I was probably overly aggressive myself due to the place I'd come from before that. Bloody Wikipedia, full of loons, kooks and Chicken Littles - and that's just me! Guy (Help!) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And I'm a loon who claims to be from another planet and Chickenman at the same time. But, yeah, I did cross the line. No need to remove the comments though. Megalomaniac types like me need to be reminded to be humble once in a while. :) John Carter (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

Why did you fully protect the page? I can understand a semi-protect, but a full is absurd. Every other article about the Playboy "playmates" that I have seen here on Wikipedia includes the disputed information. While I disagree with the tactics employed by a certain editor, I agree with his basic point. Playboy is a reliable source for articles about the "playmates," unless someone can make a darn good argument as to why it's not, in my opinion.

I guess I'm not asking you to unprotect the page. I am asking you to restore the information that was being disputed because, in the end, it is accurate and it is standard information for articles of this nature. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


reference to issue

I noticed that here... http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#technocracynet.eu MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia user Hibernian (Ross Murphy) is mentioning this site.. which is another blog/forum that is not connected to TechInc the actual group. http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Members_List&file=index&letter=I&sortby=uname&authid=b31ea5612f1f6ec34062fd85bc4cdb96 Hibernian/Icarus user page. Technocracy.ca

I just wished to mention that he is a registered user/participant there.. and that site is a sponsor of the NET site http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&req=viewlink&cid=1 NET promo.Technocracy.ca Also... as has been mentioned he is a registered forum member below. http:DISABLE//en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65 Network of European Technocrats - Ross Murphy.

Another editor on wiki named Kolzene is the leader of the TechCa group. Isenhand, Hibernian & Kolzene have acted in unison to control these related articles. Plus other NET forum members. If I could make a suggestion... Technocracy movement would be another good choice in my opinion to put up for an article for deletion. It was purely an invention to support NET. skip sievert (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical pederastic couples

Since I know you're capable of drastic action in cleaning this sort of thing up, I was wondering if you'd noticed Historical pederastic couples, which, judging by the one I removed, is full of gross overstatements and misrepresented citations. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

winter cycling

it is too late becuase it is summer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.105.89 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Partisan

Since this template is completely unused and it's purpose easily fulfilled by other existing templates, I was wondering if you would mind deleting it yourself and sparing me from filling out forms 1A through 5D.--BirgitteSB 16:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

more need of vanished user replacement

See User_talk:Jim_Butler, for the same username as in User_talk:Anthon01. I'd rather not do it myself for several reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility in edit summaries

Guy, would you please not be uncivil to me in edit summaries? Today you've told me Don't be too silly, Martin and Be interested to see if anyone other than a notorious POV-pusher thinks this is inaccurate. Thanks ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for you to respond to a request for basic civility with further insults. Please stop it. I had hoped that the RfC would do some good, but apparently it hasn't. Also, this edit summary is completely inappropriate [20] because it is insulting to many who visit the article, and who might want to edit. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not appropriate for you to continue this line of baiting. You may now go away. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I will go away after this if you say, because it is your talk page. However, I am in no way baiting you. I am asking you, nicely, to stop the inappropriate behaviors in which you continue to engage. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And I am asking you, very firmly, to stop advancing your fringe POV in articles, because that (unlike my being impatient with you) actively degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation - I'm entirely certain that Martinphi does not see himself as "being silly", "POV-pushing", or "baiting". If someone does not think they're being silly at all, then what good does it do to tell them, "stop being silly"? If he doesn't think he's advancing a fringe POV, then what good does it do to say "stop advancing your fringe POV"?

Reciprocally, Martin, if you're reading here, I'm pretty certain that Guy does not consider "stop being silly" or "stop POV-pushing" to be uncivil. I may be wrong about that, in which case Guy will probably correct me, but we might as well realize that nobody is intentionally doing the things that are being accused here. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I really can't believe that 1) anyone could believe that calling another person silly in a non-joking way is civil. There is a point beyond which credulity cannot be stretched. However, just in case, we had the RfC, where Guy was told that, indeed, this kind of thing is uncivil. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing that Martin is not intentionally "advancing [his] fringe POV in articles"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. I'm seriously suggesting that he believes that he is making the articles neutral and correct. Why would anyone try to edit an article into a state that they think is incorrect or biased? He probably actually believes what he believes (like most of us), so he doesn't see it a a fringe POV.

What kind of person sees himself as a fringe POV pusher? "I'm off to push some fringe POV on Wikipedia!" What? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GTB. Actually, I would -and have- edited articles in whose subject I do not believe, with exactly the same principles as I apply to other articles. Examples include Psychic surgery, Sylvia Browne, Spontaneous human combustion, and others. As to Remote viewing, I tend to believe it has not been proven to the level of other scientific facts, which makes me more skeptical than Richard Wiseman, member of Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and debunker of paranormal claims. If editors here are to the right of senior CSI members, there is something very wrong. However, my belief or lace thereof makes no difference to my editing of the article. The same principles of ATT, the ArbComs on Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, and neutral tone apply. There is no article on WP which I would not be able to edit neutrally, because I have enough reserve to edit any of them in a neutral way. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Vanished User's name still appears

here. Needs another pass or so.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Just wanted to say...

While I would be the first to admit that I do not know all the details about the many disputes you have apparently been involved in, and I do not even have enough of a background to comment on your RfC, I just wanted to say that when I do come across you on wikipedia I almost always agree with what you are doing. I'm sure you hear this a lot, but I hope that no matter what the outcome of everything is, you keep making valid contributions. Random89 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


State terrorism

Good on you. You've always been one of my favourite admins for Doing the Right ThingTM, and we need more admins willing to enforce Jimbo's November 2003 post. Sceptre (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Process"

[21] Delusions, imagination, even fraud is a process. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, but this was not a process for viewing remote object, sit was a process for extracting money form the government to bolster a fantasy. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that, it is still a process where someone ostensibly views a remote target. If you frame it as a con-job, that's the "trick". --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't really understand what you;re saying. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly a proces for attempting to view by ESP. There shouldn't be any controversy about that. There are completely neutral ways to put it. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there are, I've just not seen any of the pro-parapsychology POV-pushers suggest anything even close yet. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael Shermer describing remote viewing: "2. ESP and Evidence of Mind. Here Chopra relies on psi research in remote viewing and telepathy, in which subjects locked in a room alone can apparently receive images from senders in another room without the use of the five senses."[22] Understand me now? --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand anyone who asserts that something fundamentally unverifiable, is anything other than a belief system. I would not dream of saying that God exists in an article, because I can't prove it. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Now it's I that don't understand what you're saying. It's verifiable as a visualization, a mental process, ostensibly referring to a remote target but probably just in the viewer's mind. If there's some "paranormal belief system" that one ends up subscribing to by calling it that, a lot of skeptics are going to be pissed because they describe it that way. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Another example: You listed Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience as a source in the intro, so I decided to look up how they describe it. From page 61:
"Most of the work of Puthoff and Targ at SRI was devoted to what they called 'remote viewing'--the ability of psychics to 'see' scenery at any distance away--perhaps even to remote-view the surfaces of other planets."
That's funny, because Martinphi had very similar words in the intro and you called it pov pushing. You were very adament about not calling it an "ability" but rather a "purported", "claimed", or "alleged" "ability". Bottom line, WP:WTA are exactly that, words to avoid. A sentence doesn't have to say "purported remote viewing--the alleged ability of alleged psychics to allegedly 'see' alleged scenery at any alleged distance away" for readers to understand it's bunk. Obviously Martin Gardner was able to avoid using those words and still got his point across. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States‎

Please don't do that again. - auburnpilot talk 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people

I notice you have transcluded User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch to your user space. Given that the page has been deleted, I instead created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. This works slightly differently, and should not be transcluded, but rather watched. But you all look to be old hands so I figure you'll get the hang of it. I hope you find it useful. All the best, Hiding T 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Take five

Guy, you're being provoked. It might be unintentional, but that is what I think is happening. I suggest that you not rise to the bait and just relax. If the article pisses you off that much just find something else to do for the moment. If you really would like to improve it then make sure you edit in a way that cannot be used against you. John Smith's (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree that topic bans need be handed out. Jtrainor (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a relevant arbcom case that points to remedies here? I'd be astounded if this cesspool of an article hadn't yet gone to arbcom. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I took more than five, I took a long ride with my son on our bikes through deep mud. We had fun. I've also stripped, cleaned and relubed my Brompton, and changed the rear tyre, which is a bugger so I've been putting it off. And guess what? Happy though I am, that article is still a festering pile of shit. Stub, protect, editprotected, topic ban and probation is my recipe. Someone else can do it, though, because I have too many fights ongoing and frankly I have no desire to become the punchbag of yet another group of POV-pushers. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for trying to do something proactive - glad you had a good time yesterday. John Smith's (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
Guy, Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. --Hu12 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

first sentence on RV

You made a change to the first sentence on RV, but it seems that you didn't notice that I had attributed the sentence to a source to improve WP:V verifiability and amiliorate disputes about it. I made a rationale for the change on the talk page [23]. Please propose try to alternative sources for a definition instead of changing the sentence and having it at odds with the source it's attributed to. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You made a change to the first sentence on RV, but it seems that you didn't notice that your source is wholly uncritical and therefore fails WP:NPOV. Or maybe you did and that's why you did it... Guy (Help!) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts

RE.whitelist request The site hosts 3000+ Hindustani classical & semi classical music as well as old film songs, withought specifying any copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers for those videos or songs. Not sure if its unsuitable per Linking to copyrighted works?--Hu12 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted user talk page

I saw that you deleted User talk:Alcarillo/Military brat; I was pretty sure there was info there since I never delete Talk page stuff. No? If not, no biggie. Alcarillo (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Just some rambling nonsense from someone, you can have it if you want but it's not obviously useful and I didn't think it worth cleaning up the spam links in it. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you could reinstate it, I'd appreciate it. I'll take out any spam links. Alcarillo (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A Request for Civility

Please don't call articles I write "Rosencruft", as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halley DeVestern. I consider it to be a personal attack. Whether you agree or not, I am trying to write good articles about people I consider notable. You are free to disagree, but please don't make up insulting terminology. I have added citations to this article, and updated the data, and even Pigman has commented that I have improved it. Whether it survives or not, I would politely request you refrain from such characterizations.Rosencomet (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, your long history of self-promotion has eroded whatever good faith I might have extended you here. Please stop filling Wikipedia with articles backlinked to your own festivals. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rouge

For your many contributions to sanity on wiki, I award you the coveted Rouge Admin flag. If I'm allowed to. I'm really not sure of the rules. Which is the point, I think William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_30&oldid=1142522833"