User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

< User talk:JzG Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:27, 15 June 2006 editJzG (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →And another thing...: reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:59, 15 June 2006 edit undoJzG (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits Archiving some stuffNext edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:
	*]		*]
	*]		*]
			*]
	*]		*]
	----		----
Line 193:		Line 194:
	:Hard to disagree. ] 16:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		:Hard to disagree. ] 16:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	JzG, me and Stephen B. Streater have spent a very long time making sure all of the information is good. May I ask that you please discuss your edits, and do not make large revisions like that without discussion. I really don't want another go-nowhere battle again. ] 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
	:No, Stephen has spent a long time trying to get you to relaise that Wiki] 23:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: What others? Discussed what? Discussion belongs on the page's discussion page, not on some obscure admin lounge.

	:: In any case, I have moved some material to the discussion page header "unverified... information". Please discuss things you want to remove, there isn't that much there that wasn't in your edit. I really want a civil discussion, and I am very open to your opinions and knowlege about wikipedia policy. However, I can't accept a simple "this page is too big" without seeing some new consensus about that. ] 01:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	::: "''No, Stephen has spent a long time trying to get you to relaise..''" - Are you trying to say that Stephen Streater hasn't been working a lot on ]? Cause if you were, you would be very wrong. I don't understand why you like to make comments that imply either things you don't mean, or things that simply aren't true. Can you please try to cooperate, people really would be much more comfortable if you did that. ] 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::What I mean to say is this: UniModal is fantasy. No patents, no prototypes, no funding. Large articles on fantasy projects violate ]. Stephen has been very patient with you. So have I. But this constant puffing of a non-existent product has to stop. ] 07:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::I think you've missed my comment on the UniModal discussion page which said "'': says theres multiple patents.''" Stephen has been cooperating with me. If hes been simply "patient" and duping me into believing that hes cooperating, then he did a damn good job. You seem to think that your time is better spent bickering with us about your blatantly biased edits. I just don't understand why you can't cooperate so that we can all agree on what goes online and what doesn't. For this reason, I respect Stephen and give him my full trust. But I guess i'm one of the few who don't trust you. And I hope you can see why I don't. ] 10:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::: Also, I'd like an answer to this question "''What others? Discussed what?''" ] 10:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::Others. This article. And here's what your link says:
	:::::::* A USA Utility Patent.
	:::::::* A USA Design Patent that is now obsolete because we no longer run the SkyTran on top of the monorail track.
	:::::::* A USA Trademark for the now obsolete "People Pod" name.
	:::::::* The new name SkyTran has been trademark in the transportation systems classification on a worldwide basis.
	:::::::* Four new Provisional Patent applications.
	:::::::* Numerous trade secrets under development that will become USA Provisional, then worldwide Utility and Design Patents. These are in the specific areas of the three important low cost unloading and loading station concepts; the more user friendly, lower cost SkyTran vehicle itself; the low cost support pole and track fabrication and erection details; and control system details.
	:::::::So: one patent, one expired patent, some pending patents (which may or may not be granted) and some trademarks. Which leaves us back where we started: it's a fantasy. ] 12:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	::: "''Others. This article.''" - I'm actually just asking for a link or two to where it was discussed. I'm working on getting actual patent numbers, as the page i cited is at least 3 years old. ] 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: See ] and my inbox :-) ] 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::: I don't know how to find your inbox from there, I'm sure you could be more specific. ] 01:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: If my inbox was publicly viewable I'd be quite worried. Like I said, I discussed it. If this had been on Wiki I'd have linked it or provided diffs, but it wasn't. But remember the discussions at prior AfD and DRV: fictional or speculative topics must be unambiguously labelled as such (which it now is). The short article we had last time I saw it (with Stephen's changes) was acceptable to me, the concept is noised about enough to justify an article I think, even though I'd prefer a redirect. It's a political concept and widely portrayed as more developed than it is, e.g. the New Haven Advocate piece which says "these pods exist", which by any normal definition of the word ''exist'' they do not, so requires careful handling to avoid misleading people into thinking it is anything other than a theoretical concept at this point. But the current article is broadly OK. ] 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::: ''It's not a political concept.'' ] 10:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::: Of course it is. A substantial number of the references "out there" are to political campaigns. ] 11:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::: Simply a semantic argument, its concept is based purely in science, and mostly in time-tested theories. However, it is an idea that most definately has and requires political issues.

	::::::::: On the inbox thing, when you said "you've talked to people" I thought you meant that you had people's support. Its fine that you talk to people privately about wikipedia things, but its not something you can use as support, since its not verifiable. ] 21:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::::: Just remind me again, where is the UniModal test track? And which cities have large-scale PRT systems as described in the PRT article? ] 22:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::: None of that is relavent to anything I'm talking about. I really don't understand why you seem to like intentionally aggrivating people. ] 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: Because I am a ] and it's part of the job to go around aggravating people. You might not think the objective reality of UniModal is relevant, but in the context of an encyclopaedia, I suggest that it is. And most of all, it is vitally important that we do not mislead people into thinking that UniModal is anything other than one man's dream. No backer + no prototype + no similar systems in use = no objective reality. ] 08:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	==]==		==]==
Line 281:		Line 239:
	An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you have been involved in discussing his behavior on these articles, you may wish to certify the dispute or add your thoughts on the issue. Thanks. Shell <sup>]</sup> 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)		An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you have been involved in discussing his behavior on these articles, you may wish to certify the dispute or add your thoughts on the issue. Thanks. Shell <sup>]</sup> 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Just wondering why you deleted this page. It seems to me as that either its history should be merged into ] or its history should at least be preserved at the resulting redirect (for ] reasons). In any case, I think its relatively lengthy history should be available somewhere other than ]. ] (]) 04:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
	:UniModal was rewritten from scratch from original sources, I understand, and the subpage was an unlikely search term. ] 10:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: Given that the history isn't deleted from record, it might be nice to have a link on the ] discussion page to the history of ]. If a non-admin is interested, why not give them the history? ] 20:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::Yes, but redirects from unlikely typos are typically kept if they have useful page histories. As I understand, parts of this subpage were merged back into the main article, which means that the page history must be available somewhere in order to remain GFDL-compliant. And the 66 item page history is quite interesting, with edit wars and such. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and restore the redirect for these reasons, and I'd prefer that if you still think it should be deleted you would take it through ]. Thanks. ] (]) 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: <shrug>. I merged the history. All fixed now :-) ] 11:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== New ] article ==		== New ] article ==
Line 310:		Line 260:
	Thanks for the support – ] 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)		Thanks for the support – ] 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Proof for "the majority view on PRT"? ==

	JzG, on the UniModal ] page, you state the following (emphasis mine):

	:"WP: NPOV absolutely requires that we show the balance of informed opinion, which means that the sceptical view must be given more prominence if it is the majority view (''as it is, with PRT, for good reasons'')."

	On what evidence do you base your assertion that skepticism is the majority view on PRT? Shouldn't there be a verifiable evidence requirement for making such a statement? In my research on PRT, I've found that there is ''almost no'' skepticism on PRT ''from reliable sources'', so your statement that skepticism is the majority view is not supported. There are perhaps dozens of PRT professionals that have worked (and published) on PRT, but I count only ''three'' professionals (Vuchic, Setty and Demery) who have come out publicly against the technology. Of these, only Vuchic's is from a reliable source, and he's only published two short essays on the topic. By this standard, the skeptical view is very much the ''minority'' view.

	If you have more reliable sources that support the skeptical view, then you should cite them; otherwise the current skeptical tone of the article is completely unjustified. ] 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Compare the amount of discussion of PRT with the amount of discussion of light rail, tramways, heavy rail, heavy underground rail. Just remind me again, where are the cities which have wide-scale PRT implementations as described in the article? How many systems are currently operational? Whichj corporations are backing UniModal? Where is the UniModal test track? Scepticism is the default in the scientific method. ] 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	::I agree, skepticism is the default, but only ''in the absence of verifiable evidence in support of a theory''. When there are reams of independently conducted research that support a theory, then skepticism is no longer the default. PRT has been studied, modeled, designed, engineered, tested and prototyped several times over, by independent groups on 3 different continents over 30 years. Verifiable proof of this is in abundance: to the point where books have been written, regulatory approval has been granted, and ''passengers have taken rides on prototype systems''.

	::Against all of this evidence, you have... (drum roll please)... two high level essays by Vuchic, and the "Gadgetbahn" article by Setty & Demery, none of which go into sufficient detail to build a solid skeptic's case. After thirty years of research into PRT, there's ''not one'' verifiable '''technical debunking''' of PRT, its underlying theory, its technology, or its feasibility. Or, if there is one, ''I certainly haven't found it'' (and I've looked).

	::The ''only'' thing lacking is a commercial installation. And even in that case, there is verifiable evidence that the lack of commercial installation is caused by a variety of factors, none of which is evidence if PRT's inherent infeasibility. So, even for the biggest knock against PRT, its lack of a running system, the evidence doesn't imply that PRT is unworkable. Against this lack of a running system is the German government's regulatory approval of Cabintaxi ''for city-wide deployment'' -- regulatory agencies don't approve concepts.

	::Furthermore, discussion of light rail, heavy rail, etc, is not in itself evidence of PRT's feasibility. Of course those systems are discussed more, because they've been around longer and have public installations. But is this science or a popularity contest?

	::Your position that skepticism is the majority view on PRT is '''unsupportable'''. ] 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::Put youself in the position of the reader: their local politician is presenting PRT as an alternative to, say, light rail: you come to Misplaced Pages to look at the relative merits of the two technologies. Do we say that PRT is a well-tried wide-scale transport system? No, of course we can't. That would be a lie. It is a hypothetical wide-scale transportation system which has had some moderately successful small-scale trials. It probably could work as a wide-scale system, but it is impossible to say so with any confidence because there is no wide-scale system in operation anywhere in the world, so we don't know what the real-world problems would be. It's really very simple. And that's what the article usually says, although the occasional bit of puffery finds its way back in (like describing as "inherent" properties which none of the test systems exhibit). Almost all discussion of publioc transport in the political and technical world is about other systems. That is what I mean by the majority view. Scepticism is the default in the ]. And yes, there is no verifiable evidence that wide-scale PRT can work, and there is even less that UniModal can work, since it uses a number of technologies that are essentially untried in this kind of application (as well as there being no data on which to base an assessment of the likely success fo a two-passenger pod; at least one system abandoned small pods in trials). ] 08:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::What a politician ''thinks'' when he reads this article is '''irrelevant'''. What kind of a statement is that? Are we an encyclopedia or a political platform?

	::::We should be reporting what is verifiable and ''trust the reader''. Your position is unsupportable in reliable sources, and in fact the opposite view is actually ''well supported''. Everything else, including political concerns, is irrelvant. Period. No amount of negotiating will change this. Why do you keep battling this obvious point? ] 10:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::What is verifiable in respect of UniModal is that no prototype exists, no backers have been found, and no system of this type has even been piloted. What is verifiable in repsect of PRT in general is that there have beeen a few small-scale trials, but that no large scale systems (of the type which dominate the article) exist, no large-scale systems are in the process of being built, ridership forecasts are speculative, many of the costs are speculative and several of the technical concepts have yet to be tried or, in some cases, approved by regulators. PRT is a politicised concept which lies at the fringes of transport thinking. As long as we don't imply otherwise, we won't mislead the reader. ] applies. Maybe you could try working on some other content areas and get a bit more perspective. ] 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::What is verifiable on PRT is that it has, on at least on occasion, received ''regulatory approval'' for city-wide deployment. This is about as reliable a source you can get: a regulatory body from a trusted government approving it for installation in one of its cities. Do you deny this evidence?

	::::::''"PRT is a politicised concept which lies at the fringes of transport thinking."'' - politicized '''by whom'''? By opponents? The only political controversy I've seen on PRT is generated by people opposed to the technology.

	::::::And why are you focusing on ''transit thinking'' rather than ''verifiable sources''? How do you know what transit professionals are ''thinking''? This is irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, even if we ''do'' focus on transit thinking, PRT has been "thought about" in many major cities: just in the US: Chicago, Cincinnati, Seattle, San Jose, Houston (I think)... and there may be others. Why are reliable sources (German gov't approval) insufficient on one side of the argument, while the perceived thoughts of transit professionals is more than sufficient for the other side? Look at the verifiable facts on PRT as a technology, JzG. You need to get beyond your ''assumption'' that PRT is not viable. ] 11:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::: What's been ''approved'' is irrelevant. No city-wide implementation has ever been built, therefore any speculation re ridership etc. is exactly that - speculation. Wide-scale PRT is therefore untried. PRT ''is'' politicised. You need only look at the debates on the Talk pages. It is proposed by politicians in opposition to other schemes. As far as I can tell every proposal in recent years has come from politicians, not from transport planners. The fact that it has been "thought about" but not iplemented does more to undermine its status as a realistic idea than to support it - and those doing the thinking were, in the main, politicians, which is the whole point. So, I have looked at the verifgiable facts. The verifiable facts are that PRT is a small-scale transportation systemn which has been tried in a few places with mixed success, and which is stated to be capable of scaling to a wide-scale implementation, but this is untested. Please do feel free to cite any sources which contradict this. ] 11:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::* ''"It is proposed by politicians in opposition to other schemes."'' - please cite verifiable evidence of this.
	:::::::* ''"As far as I can tell every proposal in recent years has come from politicians, not from transport planners."'' - Care to elaborate on specifics of that statement? I see no basis for this statement. In Chicago/RTA, Raytheon was at the forefront. In Minnesota, it was mainly JE Anderson and Taxi 2000. At Heathrow and Dubai, the political presence is apparently non-existent. Almost all political controversy on PRT is generated by those in opposition. Look at the facts. And BTW, since when are we using ''talk pages'' as a source?
	:::::::] 11:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::*What, so now you're saying it's not even ''proposed''? Delete it, then. ] 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::What on earth are you talking about? Why do you talk in riddles? ] 12:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::YOu asked me to cite the claim that it is proposed by politicians in opposition to toher schemes (a claim which I thought was amply justified from what we have seen linked from local press coverage in the talk page over time), but you appeared to dispute this. I am prepared to believe that it is no longer being proposed, but I'd want some evidence. ] 13:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::::"Local press coverage"? Are you referring to the links posted by Ken Avidor? If so, check them out. Most of the articles he refers to are written ''by Avidor himself'' -- and are almost invariably blog entries or op-ed pieces. Very little is verifiable, other than the fact that some politicians in Minnesota have supported PRT as part of their platform (just like some support buses, some support trains, and some support highways).

	::::::::::::And it seems you are alluding to the fact that politicians are involved in the selection of PRT... but that's true of ''any'' transit system. Nothing specific to PRT or UniModal there. That's a fact of life in our society; local transit is almost exclusively a government-driven industry. But then why single out UniModal or PRT? Why not say "Like all topics involving public transit, UniModal/PRT is highly politicized and controversial"?

	::::::::::::One other minor quibble: when I contested your statement that PRT is proposed ''"by politicians in opposition to other schemes"'', you automatically assumed I was inferring that there are no proposals ''at all''. Why can't there be politicians who are ''not'' in opposition to other schemes per se, but just ''prefer'' PRT? Avidor turns everything into an absolute: "you're with us or you're against us" - he cannot conceive of someone who would prefer PRT without being rabidly opposed to other forms of transit. But most people are more complex than the caricature that Avidor portrays. Just because they are interested in investigating PRT doesn't mean they hate all other transit -- even if they happen to tout the perceived benefits of PRT over those other modes (which Avidor automatically equates to "bashing transit"). BTW, I only bring up Avidor because you referred to his talk page arguments, not because I'm trying to resurrect that war... ] 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::You appear to be bringing your battles to Misplaced Pages. I don't care about your fight with Avidor, I do care about the neutrality of the project. See Stephen's comments on ]. ] 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::::::What happens outside of Misplaced Pages is irrelevant to what happens here. ''You'' brought up Avidor's political claims from the talk page, not me. ] 16:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::::::: Misplaced Pages is here to document the real world as it is, not as we would like it to be (i.e. in Misplaced Pages, as in the real world, PRT must be documented as an essentially unproven concept). Battkles which exist in the real world, such as the one between you and Avidor (which existed wel before I came alone) need to stay outside Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages can note that such battles exist, and document them. Unless you are advocating changing the various articles to pretend that wide-scale PRT is anything other than a theoretical concept at present, I don't see why we should have any problem. ] 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::: I believe the point is that we should not pretend PRT exists in any useful form yet. However, we should also not pretend we know that its a scam and that sceptics have debunked it. There are crackpot PRT critics, and also crackpot PRT proponents, and neither is a good source for the project. However, there are a good amount of reliable sources that state without clear POV what PRT is - those are the sources we should use. ] 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: We're not saying it's a scam, and never have. We do indeed cite the reliable sources, and we steer clear of endorsing (as opposed to reporting) their speculation. What precisely needs fixing? ] 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::There are many fixes I've put in over the last few months that were based on verifiable evidence from reliable sources, but you reverted them. In some cases, your only explanation for reverting was that the article needed to be "balanced". So you revert my (and others') edits because they do not mesh with ''your'' view that the article should sway to the skeptical, based on your assertion that skepticism is the "majority view" on PRT. My point is, this assertion is unsupported by verifiable evidence. PRT skepticism is sparse, mostly unscientific and almost completely derived from unreliable sources, and yet you still believe that skepticism is the majority view. Then, you ''use that viewpoint'' to justify reverting good edits in the name of balance. That's what needs fixing. There are probably five different sets of changes that I made (in the past) that you reverted with this flawed justification, and I believe should be re-inserted. ] 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::: Who is "''we''"? You may not have used the word "'''scam'''", but Avidor certainly did - and you have used the word "'''Fantasy'''" . I would like to know what "we" you're talking about. When I said we, I implied that we collectively should do something - you're using we as if we all did (or did not) do something. What needs fixing is the removal of reliable verified information, when it conflicts with an unverifiable viewpoint - ie POV. Also, unverifiable POV information like the junk you put up about "''coverage''" that "''presents a false picture of its state of development''". Sources aren't things to point fingers at and say "ahHa, see. What i say is right." They're things to point fingers at and say "ahHa, they say this!".

	::::::::: Its very clear that you have bias against PRT and thats fine. But every once in a while, your edits show that what you really care about, is that your POV is supported - and that it has equal space as verifiable (and admittedly optimistic) science. ] 07:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::: What is very clear is that if PRT succeeds, it will take cars off the roads, and JzG will benefit. So I think what is clear to you may be a misreading of the situation. ] 08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::::: I don't know if you've noticed, but I am not Ken Avidor. My political campaigning is entirely restricted to cyclists' rights issues, and I have never engaged in public debate on any mass transit scheme. I have used the word fantasy in connection with UniModal, because that's what it is at present. Fantasies have been known to become reality, this one hasn't yet. What I care about is ] and particularly the section on undue weight. I have no bias of which I'm aware against PRT, I do have a biasd against presenting as real things which are, as yet, only theoretical conepts - like wide-scale PRT, which does not, as of this time, exist anywhgere in the world (despite some pretty active lobbying and some serious government funding). What I find frustrating is the "he who is not for me is agin' me" mindset of some enthusiastic proponents of particular concepts: more energy is spent in telling me why I am an anti-''foo'' bigot (despite my usually having no previous involvement with the issue) than in actually addressing problems. I've never said I'm always right, and I've been known to change my mind, but rarely in response to dogmatic assertions. I think it was Stephen who said that if your evidence is not accepted, rather than arguing the toss, ''bring better evidence''.

	:::::::::: Stephen, by contrast, seems to understand exactly the problem with things like the cost estimates for PRT, especially UniModal. Ths source for them is ''not'' reliable in that it's a back of an envelope figure from someone trying to sell something which has never been subjected to rigorous peer-review, let alone established from real-world projects. The only wide-scale project that got anywhere near implementation required (as usual for any public transport project) large scale subsidy. It is a minority point of view which has not been tested sufficiently to balance it with anything else. ] 08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	=== And another thing... ===

	OK, we seem to be arguing in circles here. Let me take a step back and clarify where I'm coming from. JzG, I agree with much of what you've done. I agree with your mistrust of cost figures, and I can identify with your natural scientific skepticism. Perhaps 95% of what you've done on the PRT pages, ''I have agreed with''. You are, by all accounts, an intelligent and reasonable editor.

	'''But''', there is the remaining 5% of edits that several of us believe were ''incorrect''. When we tried to correct them, you reverted, many times without comment, sometimes with comments that show a basic mistrust of our motives as "proponents", and in a few cases, even going so far as accuse us of disingenuousness. In all cases, you seem to be making the following assumptions:
	# That PRT is a fantasy. There is, perhaps, an ''element'' of PRT that is fantasy. But, by and large, PRT on the whole is ''not'' fantasy. It's legitimate, promising technology that has not yet found a market, and may never find a market. But it's a real technology nonetheless. Cabintaxi and ULTra are real. CVS was real. Taxi 2000 lacked a full prototype, but had some very good engineering. Raytheon was real, though failed miserably. Just because these products ''failed in the marketplace'', this does not invalidate all of the technology and verifiable research that went into them.
	# That, as ''fantasy'', the article must sway to the skeptical view. This may be true for some ''aspects'' of PRT, such as cost and projected ridership, but these are already presented with a healthy dose of skepticism. But the whole article is littered with a skeptical tone even for the aspects of PRT that are not in question. And there is some skepticism (Vuchic's essay, the OKI report) that is basically not much more than ''opinions'' from opponents, opinions that have been answered by equally valid proponent opinions. You have repeatedly defended opponent skepticism while vehemently opposing any view that counters that opinion, ''all in the name if this skeptical balance that you believe must be preserved at all costs''.
	Now, we can go in circles here and basically continue to argue on stuff we already agree on, like the speculative nature of cost estimates. Or we can move on and start debating how to fix the article in such a way that our ''valid'' concerns are properly addressed in a neutral way. In the past, JzG, you have not always given us the benefit of the doubt in our edits and in our points, and you've made some mistakes based on your inherent POV against PRT (not extreme, but definitely there) and your distrust of our motives. What I'm hoping is that we can move beyond that now, that you trust that none of us are here to sell a product, and instead of comment-less reverts and distrust, we work together to address the few remaining concerns on the article. ] 11:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:To clarify: in my view, UniModal is a fantasy; wide-scale PRT is a fantasy (call it a hypothetical concept if you think fantasy is pejorative; I don't, but my use of English is quirky). Small-scale PRT trials are not fantasy, of course. Projected costs, ridership, functionality etc. are highly speculative. s for the rest, I'm an electrical engineer by training, I believe it when I can see it. And I don't believe in transistors either, anything less than half an amp is leakage :-) So, overall the tone of the PRT has been broadly acceptable to me for some time, in that it is unambiguously clear that anything on the scale described is essentially untried and speculative. The current UniModal article is about as big as I would be prepared to support (if we must have an article at all, which is debatable given that Malewicki does not appear to be independently notable and this concept has no reality you can actually touch). Your point about opinions from opponents largely ignores the fact that most of the article is itself just opinions from porponents, because the concept is untried on any large scale. ] 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	::''"Your point about opinions from opponents largely ignores the fact that most of the article is itself just opinions from porponents"'' - this is dead wrong, and I am prepared to prove this on a point by point basis. Everything that can be considered "opinion" or "speculative" is ''already'' identified as such, ''except the skeptical opinions'', which are presented as unassailable facts.

	::Please cite specific examples of text that you believe are "just opinions from proponents" and which are not identified as speculative or otherwise open to skepticism, and I will cite the scientific justification for those points. ] 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::They are gone, thanks to a lot of work some time ago on PRT and heavy pruning of UniModal. I can't understand why you are still arguing the toss, frankly. Like I say, the articles right now seem acceptably neutral, give or take the occasional edit which soon gets discussed and balanced. Can't you find some other transportation articles to be enthusiastic about? ] 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::So, on one hand you say ''"Your point about opinions from opponents largely ignores the fact that most of the article is itself just opinions from porponents"'', in order to justify the suppression of viewpoints opposing the skepticism.

	::::When I ask you for specific example of these opinions, you say the opposite, that "''They are gone, thanks to a lot of work some time ago on PRT...''"

	::::Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If the pro opinions are there, then point them out to me. If they are not there, then the article is biased to the skeptical view by virtue of the existence of skeptical opinion. You continue to talk in circles here, while ignoring the fact that verifiable information is being arbitrarily suppressed.

	::::And, in case you haven't noticed, I've ignored your pleas to get off onto a different topic. Right now, this is my focus, and until this is fixed to my satisfaction I will not pursue other topics. If that gives someone the impression that I am POV pushing, then that's their problem. Frankly, it shouldn't matter at all who I am or what else I edit, as long as what I am saying is verifiable. ] 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Right, so: you're not going to give it a rest, you're going to keep arguing over what is already done and seems to meet with general approval, you're not going to consider looking at any other articles, you're just goign to - what? stick around moaning that PRT is always the bridesmaid and never the bride? I think I have suddenly stopped caring. ] 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::''"Right, so: you're not going to give it a rest"'' - oh ''now'' you want me to give it a rest. As soon as you have no more answers to my questions about "article balance".

	::::::''"seems to meet with general approval"'' - even though Fresheneesz, Skybum, and I have disagreed for months on many of your edits. But I guess our collective judgement is not worth that of one admin's.

	::::::I've presented you with a great deal of evidence that most aspects of PRT are based in solid scientific reality, and I've also shown you that the skeptical evidence is all but non-existent. Still, you cling to your unsupportable views, and now that I've backed you into a logical corner, you claim that I'm just whining and you don't care anymore.

	::::::If you want to stop caring, go ahead. I'd like to work with you to make this article right, but if it has to be done without your blessing, so be it. ] 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Edited any other subjects lately? I have. Oh, and I bougt a house and buried my sister. Busy, busy, busy... ] 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::I know you are busy, and I'm terribly sorry for the loss of your sister. (I '''really''' am. I hope and pray that you and your whole family are recovering from your tragic loss). But it doesn't change the facts, JzG, so if you feel like you don't want to be involved on this page anymore, then let us and Stephen handle it. You don't have to be concerned about POV creep with Stephen keeping watch. ] 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::I've barely been near it for weeks, I have no idea why you are here making this song and andce about it. I really do urge you to find some other content to spend time on - this article is fixed to a fair standard and does not need multiple editors fiddling about with it the whole time. Let it settle for a while and do some work on one of the many other transportation articles. ] 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::: If you have no idea, then you haven't been reading the talk page. You still refuse to acknowledge that several of us have problems with it, even though several of us have echoed the same concers. These are not major problems, but problems nonetheless. Why do you insist that your judgement is infallible even though there are several of us who agree there are flaws in the article? Really, man, you insist that I should let it go, but maybe ''you're'' the one who should let it go, and let someone who isn't so bogged down in other issues (i.e. Stephen) handle it? My intent is not to be a pest here, I just think there are problems with the article that you refuse to let us fix.

	:::::::::: As for me editing other articles, I will simply say ''I choose not to''. I'm not interested in becoming a Wikistar here. I just came across this page and I'm interested in getting it right. If another article piques my interest, I'll start editing it. But I'm not going to edit a bunch of articles just to prove that I'm not pushing a POV on the PRT pages. ] 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::::::Do feel free to point me to the diffs where I have said my judgment is infallible. Maybe slightly less fallible than that of people with a barrow to push, but infallible? I dopn't think I've ever said that, and I've often said the opposite. Congratulations, though - I think the verbiage regarding PRT on my Talk page has now exceeded that on Jason Gastrich. ] 10:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::::Go back and look at this very discussion: You keep insisting there's ''nothing wrong'' with the article, even though at least 3 of us have disagreed with this repeatedly, both here and on the PRT talk page. Sure, you haven't ''said the words'' "I'm infallible" (which would be ridiculous) but you sure have acted that way. The evidence is there, most recently in last week's mass reverts in which you didn't read the talk page or edit comments (or, if you read them, misinterpreted them or ignored them). You are acting as if this article is just fine the way it is, even though several reasonable editors disagree, and you've enforced this view by aggressively reverting large sets of changes, repeatedly. ] 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::::::: See ]. And once again, please consider finding some other focus for your obsessive interest than pushing for speculative details about hypothetical transport systems. ] 13:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Hey ==		== Hey ==

Revision as of 13:59, 15 June 2006


Archives
Archive Archive 2: The Sequel Archive 3: Return of the Archive Archive 4: The Revenge - This Time It's Personal Archive 5, Jan 2006 (general archive) Archive 6, Feb 2006 (general archive) Archive 7, Mar 2006 (general archive) Archive 8, Apr 2006 (general archive) Archive 9, May 2006 (general archive) Archive of discussions pertaining to Jason Gastrich Archive of discussions pertaining to personal rapid transit Archive of discussions pertaining to adminship and requests archiving policy privacy policy

I will be dealing with some of JzG's stuff on Wiki

I will be trying to deal with requests and issues that go to JzG for the indefinite future. I may not be able to deal with all of them, since I am not nearly as experienced or prolific an editor as JzG. I'll try to check his talk page a few times a day, but if something needs urgent attention, an email to me and/or a message on my talk page will probably work better. JoshuaZ 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Count me in too of course, with the same caveats. My sincere condolences to Guy at this time - sigh. --kingboyk 02:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Guy just received a templated newsletter, which I have moved to User talk:JzG/Temp 1. I suggest moving all low-importance content to that subpage to keep this one clear. He can move/delete/archive it as he sees fit upon his return. --kingboyk 02:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Anything I can do to help? JzG is "good people"... condolences, and hope all works out well in the end for you Guy... ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My condolences to JzG. Stephen B Streater 07:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you are in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. A Transportation Enthusiast 12:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Guy: I'm praying for you and yours. "May your God be with you." - Arie. AvB ÷ talk 12:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ et al., if I can help (as a non-admin) I'll gladly make time for it. AvB ÷ talk 12:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Condolences Guy. All the best.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Take care, mate. Condolences. NSL E _(T+C) at 03:50 UTC (2006-05-23)

My condolences to you. All the best. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Condolences from me and mine as well, JzG. I'll be glad to help out with anything. RasputinAXP c 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that. Waiting is. Midgley 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Content undeletion requests

Hi JzG,

I hope your wikibreak is going well. I will be very grateful if a kind administrator posted the contents of the deleted userboxes Drug-free, atheist, evolution2, evol-N and antiuserboxdeletion at a subpage of my userpage for userification. Thanks.Loom91 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Antonella Gambotto-Burke

Hi, I've added and deleted some material with a view to giving the article more balance - unsurprisingly, that's being disputed. I feel input from a neutral and level-headed editor is needed at this stage. If you could take a look at the recent history and make some suggestions I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Dlyons493 Talk 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S Sorry about the bereavement Guy - I only noticed the top of your page on exit. Dlyons493 Talk

To any editor who is interested in looking into this - User:Sarahgeorge is the ~~publicist~~ publisher for Broken Ankle Books who published Antonella Gambotto-Burke most recent book. She (and what looks like her IP Address) are the main editors of the article (with some apparent vandalism from an Australian school). She's had some email correspondence with Guy. Suggest you look at the history of her talk page (some relevant edits have been blanked) and the first version of the Antonella Gambotto-Burke article which I've been trying to NPOV. All help appreciated. Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tuatafa Hori (again)

Tuatafa Hori was not a fake, and was not proved as such. She was deleted simply because she was suspected, and is now under protection so that she cannot be created again. The book was a proper source. They found some Myspace things that mentioned her so they assumed that she was a hoax, however, that is no basis for that type of assumption. I have a friend whos screen name is that of a historical queen, but does that mean that she made up that particular queen? I just don't think this particular issue was given enough credit-- they just wanted to get rid of it. 72.144.223.101 14:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (reposted by me from archive page - RasputinAXP c 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Hoax or not, a single source which is not available nion more than ahandful of libraries amounts to functionally unverifiable, or at best of so little objectively measurable significance as to be unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Rummel is always Right (again)

This article has been recreated in a different format. You discussed the deletion of a previous version; please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies; it may be that this version is less POV. Septentrionalis 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, justa question, you know?

What does the British Flag have to do with Admin-ship? And how is that Quality Vandalism? Livin' Large 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing: that's why it's vandalism :-) And it's "quality" because of the flag. I have low entertainment threshold. Just zis Guy you know? 07:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sidaway RFC

It sounds like you're complaining about RFCs in general, rather than commenting on this one in particular. No RFC has ever helped build an encyclopedia- I thought this was obvious. RFCs are used in those unfortunate circumstances when there's a problem. So far, a good number of people have found Tony Sidaway's behavior to be disruptive to building that great encyclopedia- hence the RFC. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to look much harder at why he does what he does. Tony is fantastically aggravating a lot of the time, but almost invariably right. Just zis Guy you know? 17:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As I commented on the RFC, I find him to be right about 75% of the time, but that's not he issue. The issue is, right or wrong he's so hamfistedly disruptive that many of us think it's important that he change his behavior. Sadly, he becomes selectively deaf when he hears criticism- a terrible, terrible trait for an editor. Anyway, I also responded to this a little bit at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3#JzG.27s_view if you care to read. I understand if you don't- RFCs are certainly an unfortunate distraction from useful work, as I attemped to explain on the talk page. Friday (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the sigs he's objecting to? ]]]]] 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC) for example? Just zis Guy you know? 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That takes 15 lines on my mobile edit window (the whole screen). PS Welcome back. Most of the action has been on the T1/T2 debates summarised (incredibly) here - the sigs are a mild diversion. If you want something completely different to look at, I've started getting my FORscene article ready for DRV here. This has a week or two more work on it, I expect. Stephen B Streater 21:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't even edit it on my Blackberry 8700, too long. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't read that particular debate on my phone ;-) Stephen B Streater 22:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good editors are hard to find. Ones that are invariably right are like diamonds. It's the ones that are ameniable, but often misguided, ignorant, or worse, widely admired by others and often wrong that lead good publications down the drain. Keep Tony. Dr1819 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's the ones who flatly refuse to acknowledge even the theoretical possibility that they might be wrong who get the bum's rush from Misplaced Pages :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Passing through...

Hello friends. I have just been catching up on a couple of things, I will be back at least to some degree but not as active as before, or at least not for a while. There has been a life-changing event.

My sister, 21 months younger than me, died on 20 May. The cause is not a state secret but I'm not really ready to talk about it here right now. I was there when she died, and I can safely say that was the worst moment of my life (and presumably hers, though fortunately she was well out of it by the end). What with helping to organise the funeral, actually managing to get the kids on holiday, driving back from Baie du Somme to Hertfordshire for the day to see her off, and the complete emotional exhaustion the whole thing has caused - to say nothing of having to find the money to buy my other sister a car with brakes - things are feeling pretty stragnge right now.

My sincere thanks to all who have sent supportive messages, and to those who have picked up the many loose ends I left dangling. I'll be back to work next week, and will be looking to make some contributions to the project soon. Just zis Guy you know? 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How terrible. I can't really say any more than that. Real life comes first, so take your time Guy, and in the meantime your friends here will be thinking of you, I'm sure. I certainly will.

I've watchlisted a couple of the articles you usually keep an eye on (unaccredited universities and Guildford (?); several whitewashing edits have been reverted and culprits blocked... I look forward to having you back to over :) --kingboyk 18:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been strange and intense. Unreal, at times. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry Guy. My prayers to you and your family during this difficult time. -- Samir धर्म 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh Guy, I'm so sorry. I hope you and your family can find some consolation somehow. Please take it easy and don't rush things. In my experience all the... reverberations can take some time to die down.

Thanks for letting us know what's going on. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was concerned. My thoughts are with you. · rodii · 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's starting to feel numb now. I was there when she died, and I really hope I never have to do that again. I'll make a user page to explain the ins and outs some time - people here have been good to me and I am a WYSIWYG kind of person - but right now I don't have the words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My condolences. Hang in there, man. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My condolences as well... focus on real life and view WP as a thing to use for stress relief, a way to escape and work on something you enjoy, rather than viewing it as an obligation. Real life comes first. Hang in there, you have a large circle of well wishers if that's any consolation. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my belated condolences here as well. (I didn't read about what happened until I was checking up on Samir's RFA.) I can't claim to understand everything you're going through, and I hope I never have to deal with something like that. I'm sure it's a stressful time, though, so if Misplaced Pages adds to that stress in any way, feel free to step back for a time. I hope the memories of your time with your sister will comfort you, as well. --Elkman 15:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this. My condolences. If there's anything I can assist with, let me know. FeloniousMonk 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies, Guy, I just saw this. Know that you are in our thoughts. KillerChihuahua 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I just saw your comment on WP:AN and realized I hadn't seen you around AfD and elsewhere for a while, and came to your user page and saw the news. Please accept my sincere (and belated) condolences. --MCB 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am truly sorry to read of the death of your sister. May she always shine in your memory.

Davidkevin 08:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your ID.

I'm just interesting about your ID. Is your ID JzG just for abbreviation? Please, Reply on my talk-page. Thanks. Just ask you for about your ID. '''*Daniel*''' 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Giant Lafree Twist Comfort Gts.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Giant Lafree Twist Comfort Gts.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

DRV

On DRV, you said that List of tongue-twisters should be restored because it was deleted at Wikibooks. It has however, also been transwiki'd to Wikiquote, where it has not (yet) been deleted. -Splash - tk 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review of List of tongue-twisters

I'm notifying you because you voted recently at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#List of tongue-twisters. Since your vote, additional information (merely, the fact that the content was transwikied to Wikiquote) has emerged. I'd therefore like to ask you to revise (or confirm) your vote in light of this additional information. Thank you, and sorry for bothering you about his. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Northandsouth

Yeah, I think you're right. Next steps? Someday you need to share your method with me of getting confirmation. FeloniousMonk 15:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I usually ask at WP:RFCU. It's unlikely to be possible to confirm at this stage, since Gastrich has not been active for months. I'll watch the edits, though, and we can go by them I think. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

First, I am not a sock puppet (I assume you mean Jason). Second, I have to figure out how to file a complaint with Misplaced Pages. I am amazed that I am providing factual information and you call it a "white wash". The article says LBU makes false accreditation claims. They do not. It says degrees by Life experience, they do not. I have made the challenge to show me several times and NO ONE has done so. When I edited I left the good and bad in there. LBU is at least honest. This article is dishonest and you have an obvious bias that means deleting material that does not serve your interest. I provided facts, you nothing. In arbitration your assertions will not stand up. LBU catalogue clearly says...we are not accredited, you are unlikely to become a certified teacher...you will not be able to obtain counselor certifcation, etc. What you and the folks who dislike LBU and refuse to at least present factual unbiased information are doing is essentially bullying. It is also dishonest.

Nordundsud 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

Feel free to raise an RFC, in fact please do as I am likely to be kicked out of the rouge admin cabal any day due to the fact that there is as yet not one RfC or RFAr against me, whereas Tony Sidaway who is not even a member is never off the lists. Sadly the assurance that you are not a sockpuppet does not cut too much ice, good faith notwithstanding, as several of Gastrich's proven puppets (verified by CheckUser) said the same. I don't care one way or the other about LBU, I do care about edit warring. It is not the way to achieve anything. Just zis Guy you know? 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

The fact that you think I am a sock puppet is amusing and to me (unprovable) demonstrates a shocking lack of intuition. I know who Jason is because about 95% of anything negative I ever saw about LBU was due to his interactions with others. Don't know what to make of him (strange run for Governor of Calfornia and even stranger concession speech). Not to mention the fact that although I am going to a fundamentalist school I am not a fundamentalist (enjoy reading Spong & Borg). As an FYI, I have three accredited degree (BA thru doctorate).

My editing, was in order to get factual information in. I don't mind having in there that some have accused LBU of being a mill. I do mind wierd assertions like LBU is a mill because they claim false accreditation or offer Life Credit Degrees. Utter unsupportable nonsense. That is why no one could support those assertions with references. To leave that in the article is wrong.

LBU is among the most honest unaccredited schools in terms of saying so several times and noting that because they do not have accreditation you will not likely become a certified teacher and will not qualify for mental health licensure.

As a side note, not all unaccredited schools are mills. They do have some large limitations in terms of their use as you note in your latest edit. You may want to read Bear's Guide. Dr. Bear has worked with the FBI to sting diploma mills and is the foremost expert in distance education. I think he is currently on Gov. Schwarzenegger's Board that deals with education.

Your last edits that I read were fine and honest. Thank you!

Nordundsud 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

My edits usually are fine and honest - in my view. And what I said was that you risk being identified as a sockpuppet - with over 100 Gastrich puppets blocked, it is a strong possibility whenever anyone starts writing apologetic material about any Southern Baptist institution. The main thing is to ensure that the reader understands that these institutions have no real significance outside the American Baptist church, and then we can all get on with life. The use of {{unaccredited}}, which I substed in the lead, is good because it means we use a consistent form of words every time, one which is neutral in tone. Which is (of course) why I created it in the first place. I certainly agree with you that Gastgrich is a rum 'un, though... Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich posted briefly on a distance education forum board that I frequent and it was a strange experience. He did not hold up well and left. That was my first encounter. Searched his page and could not believe he was serious about himself. His concession speech was quite bizarre and written as if he were a major contender for Governor of California. At any rate, education and accreditation issues are hobbies of mine and subjects that I am very...very familiar with. We have people on these education boards pursuing degrees from the University of London to the University of Zululand. I certainly always recommend accredited institutions due to versality (etc.). With Australian and South African degrees (accredited) being so affordable there is little point in pursuing unaccredited degrees. Unaccredited schools do serve a certain constituency. In the US there are some fundamentalist schools like Pensacola Christian that will not have anything to do with the government. The BBFI is a fundamentalist Baptist group (some of whom see the Southern Baptist Convention as too liberal). You are correct that terminology is interesting because you use the term "American Baptist", they are actually a variety of Baptist (rather liberal) that would probably not have anything to do with the BBFI. The openly homosexual preacher and chair holder at Princeton, Peter Gomes, is an American Baptist. He probably won't be appearing at any of the BBFI college commencement ceremonies any time soon. The very conservative BBFI theological stand espoused by LBU is probably one reason that Attorney General Ashcroft was a commencemnt speaker there. Ashcroft was a very conservative Christian (Bush's first Attorney General).

At any rate, I see you are Anglican. I grew up as an Anglican (wonderful English grandmother). One of my degrees is from a Commonwealth country and the other two accredited degrees are American. Miss my grandmother's Roast beef & Yorkshire pudding, bubble and squeak, sheperd's pie, plum pudding, etc. Still drink black indian tea with milk though.

Nordundsud 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud

Removing fisheaters.com from Spam blacklist

A request has been made to remove the domain fisheaters.com from the spam blacklist . As you are the one that requested it be listed, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a reason why I should or should not remove it. Thanks Naconkantari 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

They have asked Jimbo, too, and I gave him pretty much the same reply as I've posted on the meta talk page. To save clicking the link: see User:JzG/Fisheaters. I have no confidence that the (anonymous) operator of this site will do anything other than what she did before: add the site (in preference to either content or links to the same content at more authoritative sites) to large numbers of articles. Oh, and edit-war over its removal. Prior to its addition to the blacklist I was scanning the project monthly for new links and finding anything up to ten new links each time, on various language versions, many with misleading desriptions (Catholic view of foo or traditional Catholic view of foo - this is a Traditionalist - i.e. dissenting from the mainstream Vatican II - site). I also found several additions with misleading edit summaries, and at least one to the full text of a particular rite which was also available from the (demonstrably more authoritative) Vatican site. I don't recall any of these additions being by logged-in users. So: what we lose by having the site on the blacklist is one link to a monograph of unproven authority in one article; what we gain is a saving in time for me, scanning the project for the anonymous addition almost certainly by the site operator of linkspam. You can see why that looks like an easy call to me, but I'm not the meta sysop. Just zis Guy you know? 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've denied the request. Naconkantari 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Objective validity of astrology

Your comments on the nature of the page spurred me to start an AfD nom. Comment here if you like. Marskell 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hard to disagree. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

m:MPOV and WP:TIGERS

Sandstein has requested that his page not be cluttered with whatever dispute you may have with me.

By the way, I read both the MPOV and Tigers pages with keen interest. Both of these are rather insightful articles. I found it rather amazing how closely the criteria for inclusion into either category resembles just four of the more than twenty posters who've provided well-stated, clear, concise, and most importantly, qualified comments, both positive and negative, to my articles. It's nice to know that so few Wiki editors fall into these categories. Sadly, the four who did fall into one or more categories are apparently unaware that that they do, or that disagreement is healthy, provided the discussion remains civil, threats or invitations to leave (very uncivil) remain absent, and the focus centers around the details and quality of the article, rather than degenerating childishly into who's right or wrong. These simple rules of debate can be learned in any high school.

Of particular note were the very polite and well-crafted suggestions at the bottom of the Tiger's article. Unfortunately, I've seen very few suggestions resembling those in the comments, most disturbingly, including among a few admins. I also loved the the following statement on the MPOV article: "Upon reading this list, you are convinced that most of the people you deal with are suffering from MPOV." Sadly, I cannot lay claim to this thought, as I've only found about four of more than twenty posters to whom this applies, and then only on topics which are highly controversial in more conservative circles. The other topics I've created, or edited, to which I apply the same care, thankfull remain free of uncivility, personal attacks, etc. Who was it who said, "The best example you can provide is the one you put forth yourself?" On second thought, I could use a good polishing, too. Always room for improvement! Dr1819 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are measurting everything according to how closely it matches your own preconceived notions. You really need to try to be more objective. And you need to realise that the criticisms of the two contended articles are valid (they come from long-term, experienced and respected contributors). Instead of simply re-stating your view that the criticisms are baseless, you need to engage and find out what needs to be done to fix them. I've already given you my view on that. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

New sig

I've been following the discussions on sigs and I remember you saying something about shortening your name to JzG to make editing talk pages simpler. I'm thinking of having a new signature and am looking at requirements:

Shorter than my current one - several people have recognised me from my name, but my ego does not require this ;-)
Have a link to my talk page as well as my user page.
Three characters maximum.

To keep the signature short in edit mode, I'll need a new login name as this would be referred to twice - once each for the user page and the talk page. SS is gone, as is St, but as both my names start with St, I was thinking about: S t

The "S" represents me and links to my user page, the "t" links to my talk page. The "t" is a bit short to click on, and "St" could be confused with the (inactive) user of that name. As both my names start with St, the solves both problems.

I'm planning to wait until after my RfA, but wondered if there were any logistical issues in transferring everything over to a new id. Would I need a bureaucrat to help, for example? And of course, if it's a bad idea, the next few weeks would be a good time to mention it ;-) Stephen B Streater 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in on someone elses talk page... But are you serious? People get pissed off with the fancy crap that you're proposing to use. What's wrong with the standard sig? As it is just now? Your current sig is quite simple when it's seen within an edit:

]

and the "improvement":

]]

is a much longer string of gibberish! Thanks for reading/wangi 21:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But if I add my talk page it comes out as ]] and the new one is shorter. Stephen B Streater 21:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple reply to that is... well don't add it — the majority seem to manage just fine :) /wangi 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

When you get to know me, you'll understand that I am not the majority. Also new technology may soon allow sigs to be minimised in edit mode and re-expanded in view mode. Stephen B Streater 06:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, I don't think your sig is a problem at all, and there is every reason to post with your real name (although no reason not to). My original one was "Just zis Guy, you know?" whihc was foolishly long. Yours is not much longer than Tony Sidaway; I don't see a problem. But a beuraucrat can arrange to move your histry to a new account if you like. Just zis Guy you know? 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to mention the other pun "t" for talk and for to ie talk to (me). I think I'll just keep it in reserve, as people have been able to find my talk page. Stephen B Streater 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819

An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you have been involved in discussing his behavior on these articles, you may wish to certify the dispute or add your thoughts on the issue. Thanks. Shell 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

New FORscene article

I've got a meeting right now and will be back later. . Stephen B Streater 11:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, not unexpected (even though I put an HTML comment in there that it is not eligible for Db-repost). I have left a note for Sleepyhead. His experience was much like yours (he works for 24SevenOffice which was originally deleted as WP:VSCA). He polices a number of list articles and does a great job of defending against the spammers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Objective validity of astrology AfD

The AfD looks like it could be headed to majority delete but not consensus delete and thus kept (say 65% del). This is in some ways the worst outcome. Disinterested editors have rightly said get it out of here, while a handful of people into astrology will veto deletion. Is there anywhere it can be brought up, say with editors who work on a lot of science articles? The RfC pages generate little and it doesn't seem right to bring up an AfD at the sci Help Desk.

I realize I'm sort of asking "how can we game the system" but at the same time it strikes me as a good example of an article that if seen by long-term editors would certainly get shot down for violating all three content policies in ample measure. Marskell 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You could take it to WikiEN-l I guess, or you could take a scythe to the article and reduce it to its verifiable core. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll spam a couple of talk pages. Is it considered bad form to "campaign" over AfDs? I've never really felt the need to do so until now. Marskell 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form unless the people have been involved in prior debate on the issue, or unless you take steps to inform others you believe will support inclusion. It would be permissible to bring it to the attention of all users with a contribution to the article or the relevant section in the parent, pro or anti. Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Gurch

Thanks for the support – Gurch 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Meh, it's not really just problems as much as stress that would hinder Misplaced Pages, so I'm taking a brief side-step for the benefit of the project. And don't worry about BB Sinha, I acted rash and that was not approate (I think I spelt that wrong). I have just followed that article and had been urging the creator to bring sources, and well he said he had a photocopy, but I think he gave up. To be honest, I don't know the true extent of his humanitarian efforts, I saw Paul Farmer speak and it was fascinating, but I learned that 97% of humanitarians don't get recognized, because...well, of the field they work in. Thank you, again for all you concerns and you are an awesome admin! Yanksox 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi JzG/Archive 24, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean re the Robert Steadman comment at DRV?

I replied on Robertsteadman's talk page. He is Robsteadman, and has been unblocked per a discussion on AN a month or so ago per conditions held in my userspace linked from Robertsteadman's talk page. Syrthiss 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See what you miss when you go on Wikibreak? Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

heheh thats what Essjay said. :) Syrthiss 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice anything suspicious?

. Some of the legal points looks quite interesting, but I don't think he's come across WP:NPOV. Stephen B Streater 17:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the classic hatchet job. Pruned the Royal Dutch article, well done on sucks.com Just zis Guy you know? 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Need your help

Guy, one of my favorite editors Herostratus is being eaten alive on his Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Herostratus. Please see my comment and support if you think it is wise. I think that you are familar with Sam's the out of process deletion of the image on Lolicon article and likely understand the complexity of the decision. I think Herostratus is being unfairly portrayed by some oppose voters on that topic. FloNight talk 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Troublesome fellow

Do you mind having a look at User:Stanfordandson? He started an account today, made his first main space edit to Gay Nigger Association of America, and then decided to troll (in my very honest opinion) the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology page. I've actually been reported at 3RR for the first time! Though I seem to only have made three... Marskell 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To be clear on name Stanfordandson not Stanfordansdon is the user in question. Thx for quick response. Marskell 22:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Erk, I'm sorry if I'm annoying you. Could you make a comment on the 3RR Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Marskell_reported_by_User:Stanfordandson? With due diligence, no one should block me (I was essentially responding to vandalism) but you confirming the sense he was a troll would set my mind at ease. What's your sign BTW ;) Marskell 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)