Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:31, 22 November 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 10, June-ish 2006 (general archive) /Archive-Aug, August 2006 /Archive-Sep, September 2006 /Archive-Oct-2006 /Archive-Nov-2006 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

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

Thank you to everybody for messages of support, and to JoshuaZ for stepping up to the plate. I have written about what happened at User:JzG/Laura.

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

This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. This user posts using a British sense of humour.

Note to self: User talk:Brazucs, Esperanza admin coaching.

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History of Science
• JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

United States military nuclear incident terminology

Regarding the deletion review of United States military nuclear incident terminology, what do you mean by "In what way is this not a copy of a primary source"? I thought the deletion was regarding A5 (transwiki articles--specifically Wiktionary, in this case) -- not copyright problems. What primary source are you referring to? Am I missing something? -- Renesis (talk)

Patrick Buri

Patrick Buri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

whats the problem with the patrick buri page ? --212.203.115.157 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The creator reacts hysterically to anything other than its preferred text; it won't even allow the name to be spelled out on Talk pages discussing its deletion. Guy 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

... to the extent that I have just had to revert their change to the section title and link above. Guy 09:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, an anonymous user purporting to be George Brown opposed the deletion of a vanity page for Patrick Buri, and recreated the page enough times that JzG had to protect the Patrick Buri page against recreation.. The anonymous editor (presumably but not certainly George Brown) is now deleting any occurence of the name "Patrick Buri" from talk pages, probably in order to prevent Buri's wikipedia history from showing up on google searches. TheronJ 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall who the anon claimed to be, and there are several sockpuppets involved (e.g. Victorysurge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I had an exchange with the user under one or toher of his names and undertook to remove all the previous history of warnings etc. by deleting his previous user and talk pages, and the protected-deleted which appears in Google, provided he drop the idea of an article on Buri, which was deleted by consensus and supported at review, but the stupid sod promtly re-created it with a laudatory edit summary so I salted it again. And now he comes round every now and then to obfuscate the name because it spoils his Google presence (e.g. ). I had some sympathy to start with but this is clearly a monomaniac and having abused my good nature I am in BOFH mode over this one. Guy 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I have been looking at the details here, seems you are really in a BOFH mode, no need to insult anyone though !!!!!! are you suggesting this person is Patrick Buri, I can help here, why not, I found this persons web site and I send an email to find out and fix the situation once for all, I am waiting for a reply?--Netquantum 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the multiple accounts are owned by a child or associate of Buri. Whent he article was deleted, salted and endorsed at review, the user came to me and asked really nicely if he could be allowed to continue editing, and if the deleted-protected status could be removed, on the understanding that he would not immediately go and re-create the article, because the deleted-protected page appears near the top of the Google results for this subject (not too many hits in total, plus Misplaced Pages is highly ranked by Google). I did this, and of course he went straight in and re-created the article. I am all for giving people a fair chance, but when they take the piss and abuse my good nature I get annoyed, and this time round the article is staying salted. If you are desperately concerned to maintain the integrity of your Google results, do not add your pet subject to a site wihc says right there in the edit box that content may be edited mercilessly. And when this is pointed out to you, don't bloody do it again. Cluelessness and enthusiasm are forgivable, rank stupidity is not. Guy 11:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems that you are really pissed off with this one! I send an email to Buri's web site www.bankset.com general contact email address and asked for clarifiction I am still waiting for the info... Guy, just relax in the mean time, its not really very bad news, issues like that are part of wikipedia. Its a small problem, probably one person is making an obsession with this article.!!! I made some research and Buri seems to be known in Central Europe/Switzerland as a financial advisor guru, but seems that he has a Swiss background with education in the USA! whatever I'll get back to you when they send me more info --Netquantum 12:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not pissed off so much as I have lost patience. I will honour most good-faith requests, but if the requestor then abuses that goodwill they should not be surprised if a second request meets a more robust and less accepting response. Guy 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I received an email from Mrs Himeland working as a VP at Bankset:

" Thank you for your email and interest in Bankset Corporation and its CEO Mr Patrick Buri. We are not aware of the present discussions at wikipedia concerning Mr Buri. Except that we received an email, with reference to wikipedia, this several months ago, from an individual who was interested in Mr Buri's personal life and career, but we didn’t reply. We presently don’t have an official communications PR strategy, this could change next year though when our holding company becomes public and listed on the London Stock Exchange. We would appreciate if you can make sure that all content and discussions on wikipedia relating to Mr Buri are accurate and respectful. Please contact me directly if you need additional verification or details about Mr Buri's career, I will see what I can do. I confirm again that we are not involved in the discussions or articles and would appreciate if you can send me a copy and remove all irrelevant and inaccurate text relating to Mr Buri."

I personally suggest that Guy removes and cleans all text and discussions relating to Buri. I will perform additional research about Buri and this particular situation, eventually propose an article and we can finally discuss the issue on Patrick Buri’s talk page and Guy can then decide if he wants to remove the protection for the Patrick Buri page or not. Hope this helps….. --Netquantum 16:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. We cleaned out all the discussion once before, but Amoona chose to use this gesture of good faith as an excuse to recreate the article. It's hard to be kind and respectful when one side is not playing the game. Guy 15:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I received a few messages and emails and we are presently working on an article that should be satisfactory. --Netquantum 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Xosa

Just out of curiosity, whatever happened to User:Xosa? --24.10.172.236 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Definite sock of Zephram Stark. Guy 22:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Xosa disagreed with User:SlimVirgin or User:Jayjg, the two Zionists who control content at Misplaced Pages. Guy's help is implicit because he's too worried about his position to note that the emperor has no clothes. If you don't believe me, look at Special:Contributions/Xosa and try to find anything that he did wrong. Xosa's only crime was not subjugating himself to Zionism, as Guy apparently has. --71.89.38.210 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, several people with detailed knowledge of your editing pattern back this diagnosis. You are not welcome here, please go and find another project to disrupt. Guy 11:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John Doolittle

John Doolittle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An annon has reverted the removal of the criticism section. I've taken the liberty (perhaps wrongly) to revert the annon's action. Though you would want to know, ---J.S (t|c) 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor? User:Devilmaycares has been adding some highly slanted material to John Doolittle... (oddly the exact stuff a banned user was adding previously). Maybe if two people admonish him he'll stop. ---J.S (t|c) 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess his response is a fairly clear indicator of his attitude. ---J.S (t|c) 15:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia

Hey, I remember talking to you the last time I tried to get Lostpedia an article. I remember you telling me to go through the right channels and stuff, and the reason I'm attempting to try and get the article back now is cause I felt we had some notability from the Lost Experience that would satisfy Misplaced Pages rules. Can I possibly ask you to read the comment I've made at Talk:Lostpedia#Discussion, as well as possibly review the deleted content using your Admin powers? Then, would it be possible to chat to you about your opinions and stuff? I don't want a great war going on, I'm just looking to maturely discuss points, as well as possibly hear about what it WILL take to justify an article (as from accounts right now it seems like "a miracle" lol). Thank you very much for all the help you've given me in the past, its very much appreciated. Cheers, --Nickb123 3rd 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time here, it was deleted and the deletion reviewed. Right now we have a link to it on Lost, which is fine by most people. Misplaced Pages is not a weeb directory, after all. Guy 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'm still on the "notability" page. Just as long as we keep the conflict mature eh. I don't want counterproductive name calling anymore than you do :-) --Nickb123 3rd 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability is subjective. I want to see evidence that Lostpedia has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatment in reliable secondary sources. What we have seen thus far is either unreliable or trivial. Guy 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WONK

Whoa!Looks like my asking questions about it led to its userifying. My apologies. :P — Nearly Headless Nick 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I am coming to the view that we should prune project space of all cruft and just have very short policies, slightly longer guidelines, and as little else as possible.

What do you think of this?

4. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Misplaced Pages? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Misplaced Pages administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies? — Nearly Headless Nick 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where bullet point 4 comes from (RFA?) but in order of importance:

1. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, a collection of that which is known from reputable sources, presented in neutral terms.
2. Misplaced Pages policies support the above.
3. Misplaced Pages guidelines and processes can give useful guidance in how policy is and should be applied.
4. You cannot either legislate or document Clue.

For my money a good admin should be able to demonstrate the ability to apply items 1 and 2 in the face of blind adherence to 3. Ideally this should be achieved through the process of debate, showing those who advocate the slavish following of process precisely why, in that specific case, the encyclopaedia can be improved by ignoring it. I pretty much ignore the questions on RFA anyway, preferring to look at how the editor actually works in practice. With time I could formulate the ideal set of answers to the questions and copy-paste them into the template, thus making them redundant :-) Who's going to answer "I want to be an admin so I can delete all articles on that non-fiction crapo and block everybody who is not a YTMNDer"? They really are a bit naive. Guy 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User we discussed earlier.

FYI, I have filed an RfC about his actions. JoshuaZ 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, with the reason given.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Menage article

Please see my recent comments at Talk:Ménage_à_trois#Image_again. I'd appreciate it if you would offer your opinion in the talk page, and leave the image alone so that others can comment too. We are trying to find a consensus, and basically, you are stepping on toes by changing the image when that is not wanted by the consensus. When we we submitted the RfC, we were asking for opinions on the matter, not asking for people to come change things according to their opinion. I appreciate that you have good intentions, and look forward to your opinion. Atom 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. The responsiobility for justifying inclusion is yours, you nead to leave it out for the duration. Guy 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I've tried to explain and be reasonable. I've explained that the image was already in the article, and that you removing it is the problem. I've tried explaining how there is a regional difference in the usage of Menage, and that where I am from (and in most english speaking countries) the term is used primarily as a sexual euphemism. Trying to change the minds of all non-french speaking people is a waste of time. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, just to respect the majority of us who have a different opinion.

When you remove the image from the article, it interferes with us trying to gain consensus. What I am trying to say diplomatically, is that you are being disuptive, rather than working with me, or others editing the page. Of course, you can behave as you wish, I am trying to indicate how that affects others. Reading the comments, it would seem that current consensus is for continuing inclusion of the image, and for having other images that reflect other aspects of the topic.

I focus primarily on sexology and sexuality articles, and watch hundreds of articles in that area of Misplaced Pages. Other than a change I recall you made in the "female ejaculation" article, I don't remember seeing you participate in this area much. AT any rate, images in sexology and sexuality articles are often controversial, which is why we are discussing issues like this at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. It is a work in progress, and has more to be done, but perhaps discusses issue relavent to this article.

Again, I am asking you to stop removing the image and participate in the process. Regards, Atom 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring two facts: first, you must justify inclusion, not I removal. That has been pointed out many times. Second, I am participating in the process. I'm just disagreeing with you. Apparently disagreeing with you is the same thing as not participating; this is known as tendentious editing. Guy 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube memes article

Notable YouTube memes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Are you suggesting that we actually remove (or merge and redirect) all the YouTube crap into this one article and then nuke anything which is not covered in multiple non-trivial reliable sources? If that is actually what you are saying then I will do what I can to help with the process, starting with seeing how much we can get on YouTube itself. The approach taken on YTMND where we leave the assessment of significance to the YTMND community and link to their own wiki for anyone who is interested is, I think, a good model, since it removes the inevitable tension between fans and policy. Removing multiple articles on passing fads, of whatever source, is and always will be a great idea, and I apologise if I have misunderstood your intent here. Guy 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy - my answer to your question is yes - this is exactly what I am proposing. I think it's better to link so-called YouTube celebrities to a single article linked to (or even part of) the main YouTube article. These people have done nothing to make them notable except posted videos on YouTube, and it just invites trivial facts that don't mean anything. I can't see how most of the articles could ever be expanded to a good or featured quality either (lonelygirl15 might be an exception if it turns out to be a long-running series or a movie or something...). I didn't know what YTMND was until you told me, so perhaps it was me that didn't understand. My aim is to remove the useless articles rather than create more and it was never my intention to have both. Let me know what I can do. (JROBBO 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

I think the best way to proceed is to merge and redirect any existing YouTube cruft into the main article at YouTube, until that section gets too bog - at which point it can either be pruned or forked. Images should not be necessary. Half a dozen items is probably about right. Guy 11:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to stop the debate on the Notable YouTube memes then so I can have a go at doing that before it gets deleted and I'm unable to access the information? JROBBO 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Any response to that? I don't know how to proceed if you agree with me that this is worth keeping... JROBBO 04:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello - any response? (JROBBO 03:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Opinion requested

Hi! As an admin who has not been previously involved, and as far as I know holds no strong opinion on the matter, could you take a look at this thread at AN/I? The user has been asked to stop by several administrators (Morven, Renata, Kusma and Freakofnurture) before, but the problem is still ongoing and a fresh view from an administrator would be appreciated. Many thanks, Aquilina 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Response

• I have not pressed on or done anything of the sort. And yes, I did get the message. Perhaps I do not understand, can there be consensus building? Please, attempt to be kind and polite, and I will listen and obey. Smeelgova 09:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

• Smeelgova, Jossi is an admin, a long-term and respected member of the community who came here to give you some advice for your own good - namely that recruiting !votes in a deletion debate is one of the things which really gets people's backs up. The correct response is "Oh, OK." Please just learn from it and move on. Making a mistake once because you didn't know about something is No Big Deal. Arguing the toss about how it wasn't really a problem and it's all someoen else's fault and nobody should have the temerity to tell you that you've violated the community norms, well, that's the kind of thing that tends to have no good result. Guy 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so many new admins make me confused! I still maintain that since the original notice, I have ceased whatever it is that you all had a problem with. I have only continued this discussion because I still want more clarification. There was a reference to "consensus building" above. How does one go about "consensus building" without risking being summarily blocked by an all-knowing Misplaced Pages Administrator, who judges something not to be "consensus building" but something else, in their opinion? What is consensus building if you are prevented from posting on others talk pages about things that interest you, or things that you want to build consensus on? Yours, Smeelgova 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

So just accept that you have been informed of a community norm of which you were ignorant (God knows there are enough of them) and drop it. It's the argufying that causes the problem. One goes about consensus building through processes such as requests for comment. Guy 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice just given as advice, however I still don't appreciate your command tone/grammar "So just accept that...and drop it.", That's not nice. I can choose to accept what I wish and/or drop what I wish. There's no way that I should get blocked just for refusing to end a discussion about something on a talk-page (especially my own talk page), if I've already ceased the editing-actions in question. Anyway'... another question: OK, so you said I can go to requests for comment for "consensus building". But that looks like it's just for existing disputes. What about just things that I want to inform other editors of similar interests about? How can I get the word out to editors of similar mind, who may not mind a simple note on their talk pages? Is there a policy or procedure for this? Yours, Smeelgova 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Article RfCs exist to help establish consensus in content disputes. Whether or not you appreciate the tone of advice given to you is pretty much irrelevant: when someone tasked by the community with policing its policies tells you that you should not do something, the correct response is to learn and move on. Wikilawyering about the status of the advice, and the tone in whihc it is given, is considered disruptive. It really is no big deal unless you make it one; you seem intent on doing so. I'm sure that is not your aim, so again I suggest you just drop it. Guy 12:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi there! There is presently an arbitration case relating to Fresheneesz, whom you might remember from the UniModal discussions in April. I have seen some indication that you may have been the target of vexatious litigation, or possibly harassment, on his part. Speaking as his present target, I would appreciate it if you could comment on your experiences with him. Thanks. >Radiant< 15:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My experience with him is that no amount of patient explanation will ever persuade huim that he is wrong, or that your view is based on anything other than blind prejudice. Actually this is a little unfair - I have a stubborn streak a mile wide myself - but I found him to be possibly the single most frustrating editor I have ever come across. See Talk:Personal rapid transit and archives, Talk:UniModal and archives, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22 SkyTran/UniModal uncooperative admin etc. I suspect that the crusade against notability is the result of the removal of UniModal, a fictional implementation of a hypothetical transport mode, as a merge and redirect. Fresh warred over this and re-created the content as soon as he was able to. Compare Fresh's original with the current version. User:Stephen B Streater may be able to give you a less jaundiced view. Guy 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries?

Howdy - I saw your commentary over at the Talk:Ménage à trois page. May I ask which dictionaries you use, and what you think of them. I've been looking for a more modern dictionary than those I already have, but haven't been very impressed with the few I've had a chance to review at length. Thanks. --Badger151 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I find Merriam-Webster's Collegiate is very good for US usage, and for British usage I have always preferred the Oxford (Concise generally). Guy 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Badger151 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I ask here so as not to stir things up on the Talk page...

regarding MaT. My experience has been to use MaT as indicative of a threesome, but I'll admit that it's not a phrase that I use often. In your experience (as a speaker of English) would MaT describe something similar to a marraige between three people (and I'm including not just a sexual life (which may not be present at all in some marraiges) but also the shared resources and interdependency, emotional attachements, sense of unity, etc)? Do I have that right?--Badger151 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unaccredited med school issues

See the Talk:American Global University School of Medicine, for anon's issues. Arbusto 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"I absolutely agree that Jaskaramdeep is an editor of an incredibly trying kind"

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but antagonizing someone in this way, in a place he's likely never to find it, is violating WP Civil, no?. Perhaps if you had actually read the page and saw that I provided links to ALL of the statements Muero said were POV, you would change your mind. (also, not every editor agreed with Muero - he has a history of "exaggerating" the truth. Several said there needed to be a balance between his dry version and my overly congratulatory version). Jaskaramdeep 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You could always try being less... trying. If you want to write a fanblog, please try myspace. Guy 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean to be "trying"? Is it consistantly engaging yourself in altercations by promoting yourself to the status of "Wikicop"; showing those who you deem lesser than youself that they are, infact, lesser than yourself? Or is it minding your own business, sincerely attempting to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and getting upset when the self-proclaimed Wikicop deletes 3/4 of your article, citing POV, when you can (and have several times) provided links that show that the removed substance was not POV? Perhaps this time, before responding and accusing me of writing a fanblog, you should read the talk page to see my responses to his accusations of POV. Jaskaramdeep 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It means trying the patience of other editors. Especially by promoting an agenda. And actually some of us are Wikicops. Plus, if you notice, I suggested a dispute resolution process as an alternative to edit warring, raise here by someone else after I told him to stop edit warring. You were, however, unintentionally correct in your edit summary: there was no NPOV in your edit. Guy 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. What agenda am I promoting? A thorough Ales Hemsky page. What agenda is Muero, a Detroit Red Wings fan, promoting? Removing all positive information possible from the page of the player who scored two goals late in the third period of Game 6 which knocked the Wings out of the first round of the playoffs. I'm sorry, but if anyone has a hidden agenda, it is Muero. Jaskaramdeep 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"THIS IS HEMSKY'S WORLD; we just live here" Guy 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I already said, my agenda (if any), is a thorough Ales Hemsky page. You said that the material I re-added (which was subseqently removed) was not POV, so I don't see how my being a fan of this player (which your quote shows) is cause for any concern. However, you ignored my concern with Muero's ability to be unbiased in the article. Do you think it's a coincidence that he only started removal of "POV" from this page after the player scored two miraculous goals to break the heart of his team, and send Steve Yzerman into retirement on a sour note in what was supposed to be "Detroit's Year"? Jaskaramdeep 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As you also already said, your version was "overly congratulatory". That translates to a violation of one of our core polciies: WP:NPOV. Feel free to learn and move on. Guy 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, some other users referred to my initial version as overly congratulatory. Sometimes I wonder about the point of discussing issues with people who try and twist the truth to their advantage. If being "trying" is due to being too rational, then I guess I'm going to have to live with that. You still haven't addressed my concern with Muero Jaskaramdeep 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And other edits were, similarly, excessively congratulatory. Plus, as noted above, I was actually admonoshing someone else entirely. Off you go, now, and don't do it again. Guy 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, off I go indeed. Thank you, though. And not just for the entertaning dodging of my valid concern with Muero. It is through your completely irrelivant responses, and lack of any accuracy whatsoever regarding my comments that I have decided that some people on this site are just, for lack of a better term, dense. I have chosen to ignore such people in the future. Peace out Jaskaramdeep 21:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation: you refuse to acknowledge any fault whatsoever and will go on your way secure in the kowledge that it is everybody else who is wrong. In other words, a garden variety tendentious editor. Why ask, I wonder, if you're not going to listen to the answer? Guy 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You just keep digging youself into a deeper and deeper hole, man, This is exactly what I am referring to when I say that you lack any accuracy whatsoever concerning my comments. Twice I asked you to read the talk page. Twice. Perhaps if you did, you would have stumbled across this quote from me: "As I've already said, looking back, lots of the stuff I originally wrote was POV, and should have been removed. But lots wasn't, and still hasn't been restored, even though I've provided links". If this doesn't prove that you're unwilling to look at the facts, nothing will. Jaskaramdeep 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So you say. Me, I tend to the view that you may not be the person best qualified to judge the quality of your own work. Further discussion of this particular issue should be directed here. Guy 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the sound of a checkmate. Thanks for this. It feels good to know that when I don't get angry at the other party so that they can bring up WP Civil to end the discussion, the rational basis of my argument will win out. This was productive! Jaskaramdeep 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly open to that possibility, as son as you state this supposed rational basis I can make an informed judgemnt. Guy 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortuna saga

• Fortuna Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently, you deleted the Fortuna Saga Misplaced Pages page. I belive it should be undeleted, and urge you to check out the deletion review about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles C. (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.

• No deletion review exists. If you want to start one, do be sure to bring evidence of this being the principal subject of multiple non-trivial articles in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, also include those references which allow us to verify the neutrality of the article and establish its objective significance as rated by independent authorities. Note that blogs and edit-yourself sites are not acceptable sources. Guy 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Guy, the deletion review now exists at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 20#Fortuna Saga. As you already know, over at DRV we like to get comments from the deleting admin. GRBerry 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortuna Saga

I don't mean to be rude, but is there a reason why you deleted the Fortuna Saga page? People can search nearly anything on wikipedia, but now they'll never find the Fortuna Saga. Just wondering the logic behind that decision.

If you want to find Fortuna Saga then Google is your friend. I remain unconvinced that anyone will be loking for it here, mind, since there are zero cited sources in the article. The answer to your question is at DRV right now, see above. Guy 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In the deletion review, you'd mentioned your willingness to transfer the last content to a userspace so it can be taken out of Misplaced Pages. However, any mention of it in the deletion review itself has gone unnoticed. If there is some specific process required for this to happen, please let me know. Otherwise, however, I'd like for this to be done into my userspace, so this issue can be put to rest. Imaria Prime 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is ask a passing admin (e.g. me). User:Imaria Prime/Fortuna Saga, I'll delete it from there in a couple of days. Guy 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got the source saved, and I will make it available to the rest of the Fortuna Saga community. Thank you for your help; you can delete it whenever you like now. Imaria Prime 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy. I'm looking at doing the transwiki to Comixpedia, and it appears that when I originally edited the Fortuna Saga article I somehow managed to nuke the history prior to my edits in the process of changing the page title from "Fortuna saga" to "Fortuna Saga". In respect for the terms of the GFDL, is there any way to get the rest of the history back so it can be preserved in the transwiki process? (I feel like such a nerd right now, writing this kind of stuff... ;) Grim Revenant 09:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ParadoxTom

Regarding the warning you issued this user: can I suggest more caution? I have not observed any disruption of the Jews for Jesus article. He was in a rather nast edit war, but the other party was as reposnsible as he was. Feel free to contact me for more information. DJ Clayworth 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The principal difference is that ParadoxTom (talk • e-mail • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) does not seem to be active anywhere else or doing anything other than disrupting - and has the block log to prove it. Guy 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz

Thank you. 06:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackoz (talk • contribs)

You are most welcome. Guy 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was looking through this page to see if there was any discussions about current Rouge admin events (I know I should get out more) and I stumbled across this little exchange and it fascinated me:

did you help him with an edit? boring.

did you fight off the Mongol hordes? more likely.

did you give her a baby? nice idea, but ...

did you massage his ego? not like you.

did you lend her your rouge lipstick? ah, now we are getting somewhere.

whatever it was, please don't tell me; I am enjoying imagining. Abtract 13:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• As you rightly guess it was duller than you would like, your speculation is far more entertaining :-) Guy 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Help?

I recently created an article that was deleted then recreated as a terrible stub. Is it still possible to retrieve the original article that was deleted even though the page has been recreated? Could you also find out why the article was deleted. The article is called "The The Lighthorsemen . Could you retrieve it and give it to me to improve? Thanks Culverin? 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyvio speedily deletable under CSD G12. The deletion log is here. MER-C 11:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that MERC. Sorry for the bad grammer. I fixed it though. Culverin? 12:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I change my User name with your authorization?

I'm sorry. I've been way too immature on Misplaced Pages and I really wanna stop. So, with your authorization, can I create a new username to start all over with a clean slate? You can have administrators watch me and espionage everything I do. Please answer me as soon as you can. Thanks. Dragonball1986 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Air Training Corps - List of Squadrons

I agree really, but I was looking for a way to disuade additions. There is no easy list on the official web site. CS46 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The wing sites usually have a list, though - and frankly, finding the squadron is best done by going to the region or wing anyway, as it won't necessarily be obvious which is the right one. I do get seriously pissed off with people who delete "don't add foo" comments and then add foo, which is what's been going on here for a while. WP:VSCA applies. Guy 12:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Time Cube unjustified deletion

Hi JzG, I noticed that you attempted to suppress Time Cube via a deletion nomination. The time has now come for you to provide a straight answer: are you part of a Cubeless conspiracy, do you support 1-corner singularity religion or academia, and is it your aim to silence all mention of Time Cube and to brainwash humanity into a death-cursed stupor that will lead them to terrible explosive Armageddon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.5.186 (talk • contribs)

The single word "suppress" tells us everything we need to know here. Misplaced Pages is not the place to promulgate deranged theories. Guy 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review: web operating system

Guy, thanks for your comments on the deletion review of the web operating system article. I've written a response there that I hope you might have a look at. Thanks again. - JohnPritchard 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, will you consider changing your position on DR:WOS?. - JohnPritchard 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a user two weeks ago you threatened to block, is at it again. Arbusto 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute and the clashing of two robust editors to me. She's a valuable and respected editor, as is Arbusto. I would urge dispute resolution over any talk of blocking or such like. --kingboyk 12:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, Kingboyk. What I am "at again" is restoring a POV tag that was removed (three times, no less) by Arbustoo; he has expressed the idea that POV expires after a week, if there is no further discussion, and no attempt by the editor who inserted a campaign attack ad into a bio to neutralize the information. As far as I know, POV doesn't expire :-) Sandy (Talk) 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right there is no expiration date for tags. However, you are the only one who has POV issues and you added the tag. You have not made any proposal for changes nor have addressed the issue in the last week. Thus, no POV debate=no tag. Arbusto 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Arbustoo, I'm noticing a pattern of incorrect statements about my edits across a number of unrelated talk pages, while you seem reluctant to engage in conversation in the appropriate places, which in this case, is the article talk page, where the explanations for the POV tag have been detailed since the Farrell attack ad was added to the Shays' article. Please confine your commentary about my edits on articles to article talk pages; it may appear that you want to paint a certain picture of my edits across a wide number of talk pages, rather than engaging productively on the article talk page. Sandy (Talk) 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We're looking at a well-trodden path here. Document on Talk, in detail, what you would like to see change, discuss, and if you can't agree go to dispute resolution. Keep WP:BLP in mind at all times, and do not be tempted to give undue weight to campaign claims of the subject or his opponents. If all else fails, roll back to the version before the campaign and wait until after the election. We have no publication deadline. Guy 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sound advice, JzG — except for the Wikilink to deletion review as dispute resolution :-) Arbustoo and Francisx seem concerned about election deadlines; correction of POV issues and removal of undue weight paragraphs has not been possible so far. Until/unless they agree to work on the POV together, I can only continue to maintain the tag, and move on to other work that keeps me quite busy on Wiki. I'm sorry this issue continues to pop up on your talk page. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Always be open to the possibility that the other editors involved in the dispute are right. Guy 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I'm caught up on backlogged work, I'll have a look at that possibility on the Shays' article (there are pretty clearly issues of undue weight there, how to fix the rest is harder). In the meantime, I'm expending unnecessary effort defending myself against inaccurate claims Arbustoo is spreading across numerous talk pages, instead of focusing his efforts on resolving issues on the article talk pages. Thanks for the advice, Sandy (Talk) 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no deadline: Perhaps you should not POV tag an article when you cannot address the POV, and not before. Also perhaps you shouldn't remove the entire controversy section until you get consensus.Arbusto 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are confused on both counts, Arbustoo. It's not my obligation to address someone else's POV, and there was clear consensus on the Media Matters material. Can you please confine your comments to article talk pages in the future, so we don't have to keep abusing of JzG's talk page? Working things out directly with involved editors can be so much more effective then running to an admin whenver you have a difference. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 02:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Web operating system encore

Guy, thanks for your comments. I think I've finally realized the desired idea and have merged WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system. Thanks again. - JohnPritchard 03:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Guy 08:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact Finder

Just a heads up, Fact Finder (talk · contribs · logs) is claiming, thru {{unblock}}, that he should be unblocked, because he claims everything has been sorted out between you and him. Thought you'd like to have a look. See User talk:Fact Finder. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cabals

I came across User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. It's superficially intended to seek out "Strivercruft", but lately it seems to have become rather more wide-ranging and overtly politicised in its goals, and becoming a source of Wikidrama into the bargain. Since the Userproject:Conservatives thingy was rightly squished, I'm wondering to myself if the above page would be a suitable subject for MfD. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance, 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid use for a subpage, tracking the growth of 9/11 conspiracy articles, if you feel it is overly personalised then you can edit it mercilessly. Guy 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Week?

Is this article about the same thing as the one discussed here? I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask to be sure. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a band (or hoax band). But this one is a WP:NFT failure to my reading... Guy 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WHO

Hi,

I'm curious about the guy at the WHO who is corrupting their reports. Do you have any links about the WHO's helmet policy? Thanks, Peregrine981 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not "corrupting" as such, but Philip Graitcer is a "liddite" - a true believer - and the reports he writes and the advice he gives are from the standpoint of accepting TR&T 1989 and the Thompsons' other work at face value. He will not respond to questions about the awkward reality that there is no known population anywhere in the world where cyclist head injury rates have improved as a result of changes in helmet use. The same problem caused the BMA volte-face last year. Guy 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

SEO Contests

• SEO contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You're joking right? About the SEO Contest article and the alleged pagerank. Please tell me you were joking... Wit 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way? Guy 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I meant your mini-rant about pagerank. Misplaced Pages is not about pagerank any longer. We can get back to linking to pages we like to reference, instead of making people guess. I agree there's a lot of linkspam these days, but there's no need to exaggerate IMHO.

Funny thing is that I can't be arsed about the links because they are not pointing to my own sites. What I don't like is Misplaced Pages articles turning into incestuous little bits of semi-info, solely designed to keep people on the site. I mean come on: do we have to turn each and every single date into October 26th, 2006 FCOL.

Articles without external references are nigh-worthless, in my view. They suggest Misplaced Pages is the sole source of info while making it obvious that it is not. They make it look like the info is all made up. (LOL, I just realised those remarks are best replied to with "Ok, I'll just delete the article then, at your request". I've seen that happen before - recently. Still, I presume you're not like that, since I've seen your previous edits which were not as harsh as your earlier ones and which put you on my "mental serious WP editor list" a long time ago.)

I have to ask you though: Are you still having fun editing for Misplaced Pages? Wit 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanity check requested - Clint Curtis

Guy, William, if you guys get a chance, can you take a look at Clint Curtis and let me know what you think? I hope I'm not in an edit war, but it's getting close to an edit border conflict or something, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Diploma mills

• Patriot Bible University, the place Hovind was "educated" via the USPS mail service with, is getting hit by a new user.

He is acting in good faith, but he does need a warning from someone else that removing references to it being a mill is not acceptable. He is removing that is is considered a diploma mill from the introduction. Also unrelated to a warning, he wants to explain it isn't on the FTC (that's right the Federal Trade Commission) list of diploma mills. How does the latter mean its not a mill? Arbusto 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• International School of Management (ISM) was recreated after being deleted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM). The new version claims its accredited, which isn't true. The creator admitted in the creation summary that it was deleted. Arbusto 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nations University is a spammy ad page created a new user with the same name today. Speedy per corp without notability? Arbusto 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. International School of Management (ISM) deleted as WP:CSD G11 and G4 and salted. Mdis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a SPA and has been warned to desist. Nations University was also a blatant advertisement from a SPA (hurrah for G11) and it, and the redirect at NationsUniversity, have been speedied. Guy 10:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nations University is actually NOT a diploma mill. It is an unaccredited, non-profit school for reasons listed in its article...namely that it offers all of its resources for no charge, and has a student body scattered about the globe, making campus size and library size impossible accreditation categories to fulfill. I am a relatively new editor to wikipedia, but the opening page said to make contributions on subjects on which you were knowledgable. Therefore, I have only edited a few pages. Naturally, I would not be editing a wide variety of pages during my first few days as an editor. If you feel an article's language is too slanted or not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it would be appreciated if you simply suggest that the author revise it, rather than speedy deleting it. It is natural that one would be slightly slanted towards subjects about which one cares enough to contribute an article. Nationsu 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Every unaccredited school has a really, really good reason why it, unlike its accredited competitiors, shold take a principled stand against accreditation. This holds across the entire gamut, from the PO Box diploma mill to the substantial campus Bible college. Guy 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Civility is thrown out the window on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute (2 nomination). Can an independent person step in and talk the user about this? Example: "Why are you concocting a ludicrous hypothetical slippery slope scenario, and not addressing the arguments that have been presented for the article in question using the guidelines provided"? Arbusto 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• International Academy of Science doesn't look notable. What do you think? Arbusto 01:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• ANMAB is a new article without notablity; unrecognized accreditor. Speedy? Arbusto 07:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• American Association of Drugless Practitioners is another one. Speedy? Arbusto 08:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Flamel College is created by the same user above. Speedy? Arbusto 08:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Pattern vandalism at Concordia College and University. Arbusto 03:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• We don't allow unaccredited schools to claim to want legit accreditation, should B. H. Carroll Theological Institute be an exception. See these: If it becomes a candiate for accreditation that is woth mentioning, but posting that its website claims to want accreditation is silly. The removal of the mention that it is not a canidate for accreditation citing WP:OR is equally as silly. Arbusto 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Dumb edit war at Long Island University C.W. Post Campus, an anon. IP insists on incorrectly linking and listing items. Arbusto 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking through these, thanks. The usual mix of spam and special pleading, of course. Guy 09:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Advice need on Talk:American Global University School of Medicine. Arbusto 23:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Our List of diploma mills is getting mentions as a good resource at various educational websites! Arbusto 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is interesting! Our sources need to be kept carefully neutral and reliable, but it's certainly an endorsement wirth mentioning on the Talk page. Guy 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Misplaced Pages community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

JzG, you've expressed an interest in this article before -- can you take a look at Talk:Pacific Western University#This article is stuck as a stub -- I need your help and leave a note as to whether you think the proposed draft is acceptable as a replacement for the existing stub?

Thanks,

--A. B. 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is removing commercial links vandalism?

This is on my talk page. I received these two vandalism warnings today:

*First warning:

--Vandalism warming--

{{test2a-n}} -999 (Talk) 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*Second warning:

--Removing citations is vandalism--

Please stop removing citations from articles. It is vandalism--

{{test4}} -999

• • Vandalism warnings replaced with template calls on Guy's page only. --kingboyk 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

*My actual behavior:

The "vandalism" of Winterstar Symposium consisted of (as recorded in the edit summary) -- (External link - removing 1 of 2 links to a Rosencomet commercial site as 2 links to exact same site address are unnecessarily commercial). This was one edit only. I have not edited that article since, so I do not know what the second warning refers to. The last time I edited that article was October 12, 2006.

An administrator Samir धर्म 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) removed them. But now they are back minutes later, now placed by User:Ekajati. This all has do do with the User:Rosencomet commercial links. Can I be blocked for removing a commerical link in an article? Thanks! Timmy12 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton got the point

Finally someone did. I can go home now.

A more pertinent issue to examine might be the probable linkspamming by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) of his website, often using the claim that they're "citations". --User:Calton 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My complements to him, enabled by User:Timmy12's valient (reckless?) attack. I can rest in my grave now. Mattisse(talk) 03:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Advice request

Hi, Calton (talk · contribs) suggested that I ask you for advice, and stated that he would take take the blame for me bothering you. ;-). There is currently some contention between, on the one hand Calton and myself, and on the other hand Hanuman Das (talk · contribs), Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and 999 (talk · contribs). The contention is over a large number of links inserted by the latter editors, and removed by the former. Calton and I may see things slightly differently, so the view I present is purely my own. The editors on the "insert" side, have been inserting links to www.rosencomet.com ostensibly as references to support assertions in a number of articles about various musicians as well as others. I think there are definite conflict of interest issues, but that aside, the links appear to me as link spam. (Calton, I believe is more concerned with the "internal" linkspam aspect of these edits). I have expressed my opinion that references need to be from reliable third party sources and not a promotional website. We briefly argued the issue , , , but this did not prevent a a new round of insertions and deletions.

If you have time, I would very much like to know your opinion on this matter. Please do not be afraid to tell me if you think I am mistaken, either about the policy, or about the best way to proceed. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

rosencomet

Sorry to start a new section, I am in a cafe in Dusseldorf and my Blackberry browser is a bit crippled.

I diagnose spam. Links added by the webmaster, site has no evident authority or editorial board, 999 looks like a possible role account or sock. Nuke the lot and if necessary ask for blacklisting, is my gut reaction here. Guy 08:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --BostonMA 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you again. Two items. First a report. Have been unsuccessful in discussing the matter with rosencomet. Nuking the links has resulted in rosencomet, 999, ekajati and Hanuman Das reinserting them. Calton will be filing a report on AN/I tomorrow. Second, I'm not in the habit of removing warnings from my own talk page, but prefer to have them reviewed by third parties. Could you take a look at this and remove or keep as you feel is appropriate. Thanks. --BostonMA 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it and the preceding thread too. It's quite clearly not vandalism and no involved party is so new that they need to be told about the sandbox! :) --kingboyk 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Devilmaycares

I'm filing a RFC against Devilmaycares' conduct. Since you have former dealings with him I'd really appreciate your input into the proceedings. ---J.S (t|c) 18:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I apreciate your input. ---J.S (t|c) 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A non admin-related acknowledgment

Just thought I'd add this note... well done! I see you everywhere lately, keep it up! CattleGirl 05:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29 - Pending

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Pending' section of the coaching box.

• If the coaching has started and is ongoing please move the entry to the 'active' section of the box'.
• If the coaching has finished/never going to start please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
• You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
• If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
• If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Highway 22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo (talk · contribs) is back

Dear Guy

I've filed a request for check-user on Brampton 2006 (talk · contribs), whom I strongly suspect is a sock puppet of our old friend WW, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/WikiWoo. Since you have dealt with him pretty extensively in the past, I thought you might want a heads-up. Cheers, JChap2007 07:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. I've had a gutfull of that one. Guy 10:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you help block his other sockpuppets? Checkuser results are back, and has identified several other sockpuppets:

• Gay2day (talk · contribs)
• Plato2100 (talk · contribs)
• Soliman2 (talk · contribs)
• Cranch2 (talk · contribs)
• NotYouToo (talk · contribs)
• WhoseUdady (talk · contribs)
• E64.15.147.171 (talk · contribs)

I've placed what I believe is the appropriate sockpuppet template on the userpages. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Steere

Something that I found on him at BoardGameGeek:

My recent experiences in SDG were terrible: I had a weird discussion on the *true* meaning of the word "simultaneous" as if there were just one truth, one *true* definition. This reminded me rather of the world view of religious cults who want to save you and who claim that just they can do it. This was followed in other threads by a deliberate misquotation to make me look ungrateful, and, instead of real arguments, the other side was called "ridiculous", "megalomanic" and "pseudo-intellectual". I got an e-mail that warned me against a "troll" who dominates all the discussions and, I should add, is permitted to insult everybody. I met him soon. There is an atmosphere of fear generated by the owner of the group who supports this kind of behavior and then exclude those from the SDG discussion forum who defend themselves. So, take care of yourself and keep a low profile if you chose to play there. If you want to know more, just write me privately, join the group stacking games at Yahoo! ( http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/stacking_games/ ) or just take a look at the recent discussions in SDG forums to see how this (pseudo-)community ticks; e.g. http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=427 http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=429 http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=431 http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=434 http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=436

Thank you for posting the links to the discussions. I think they will speak for themselves. I remain deeply saddened by the actions I felt I had to take but still feel they were the right thing to do. SDG remains an open, free, and above all safe place to gather and play abstract strategy with others around the world. All are welcome. The above list of relevant discussion threads should also include the following: http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=438

Any place in which Mark Steere is allowed to intimidate other users can hardly be called "safe" (especially if he is supported by Aaron Dalton): http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Steere http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive50#MarkSteere http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_3&diff=62194693&oldid=62193047 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/stacking-games/message/1... http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/91... http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/86... http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/85... http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mancalagames/message/130...

I disagree with your deletion of the Time cover in the Goatse article

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Goatse.cx#TIME_cover is my reasoning, posted before your edit . If it's the caption you have issue with, that can be changed. I think that image contributes to the article simply by making it more interesting. The cover is a humorous accidental allusion to goatse.cx. Nobody in any seriousness thinks that this "accidental goatse" was intentional, although the resemblance can't be argued. So I don't think WP:OR even comes into play here.

I won't myself add the image back unless you read my reasoning and change your mind, but that image has been fought over for awhile. Before you came along, two people removed it and two people put it back, all different people. —Lantoka 17:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's disputed. Which means: we need an external reliable source. Actually, scrub that: according to WP:FUC you can't use a Time cover on any article other than the one on Time magazine. Guy 17:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Throwing the fair use issue into the argument definitely tips the scales toward removal. I'm okay with it now. Thanks for your reply. —Lantoka 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete Nowhere-Else and Beyond?

Nowhere-Else and Beyond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Okay, I saw the log for Nowhere-Else and Beyond's deletion and it said "Absolutely no signs of significant value". That doesn't make sense since it is a MMORPG and the article was also under development. What are the signs of significant value to you? If you deleted Nowhere-Else and Beyond you should also delete the other MMORPG pages because most of them are no different than Nowhere-Else and Beyond's page. What I'm getting at, is that I want a good reason for Nowhere-Else and Beyond being deleted. Garth of NEaB 13:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What I said was: no evidence of significance. Feel free to rewrite it in terms which unequivocally demonstrate its importance, by reference to the multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources of which it has been primary subject. Of course, if it hasn't been the primary subject of any non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, that would be an indication that we cannot cover it without violating policy. Guy 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that I should re-write the article giving secondary sources that give reference to what I put into the article, right? I;m sorry if I misunderstand you as I'm probably not as old as you think I am and some of what you said is a bit confusing to me. Garth of NEaB 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I always assume that anybody writing about a browser-based game is the same age as my elder son, who is twelve :-) So, what you need to do (ideally in your user space, for example User:Garth of NEaB/NEaB) is to document the game exclusively from reliable secondary sources, such as reviews from computer magazines. What you know, we can't verify. Above all you must establish the significance of the game. There are some guidelines at WP:WEB which might help you out. Guy 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That was what I wanted to know! I have only one more question, can I have what was already written for the Nowhere-Else and Beyond article to revise. I was working on getting secondary sources, but that was taking some time. I needed a base on which to start, so I wrote what was there and said it was unfinished. Anyway, if I could have what I had already written I would be greatly appreciative! Garth of NEaB 14:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Presto: User:NEaB/Nowhere-Else and Beyond. Please tell M. Bertrand that editing articles on oneself or one's own endeavours is strongly discouraged. Guy 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He (M. Bertrand) was not editing it for his own good but rather for the good of the article since it was so short. He was just adding information about the site, although it was from a primary source it was not bias and, as far as I could tell strictly information. And since anyone could edit it, if they found it incorrect they could of course edit it themselves. I'm also sorry to say that I have yet another question: Could I use information from the players of Nowhere-Else and Beyond's web pages? The problem with this being that their web pages are hosted on Nowhere-Else and Beyond (Although it is all original information and was all written by the players themselves). Garth of NEaB 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Even so, things you know are counted unverifiable. The answer for M. Bertrand is the same as the answer for the player info: only as a last resort. All articles should draw primarily from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But the players are a secondary source, if players are not a secondary source then it is impossible to have any source but the primary one. So, you're saying that information can come from reviews of the game by non-players? Garth of NEaB 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. They are not a reliable source and anything drawn from what the players write is original research. It is also a waste of time if the game has not been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Start with the magazine articles and see how far you get. If there are no magazine articles, tag it {{db-author}} and find something else to write about. Guy 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I worded that last question right, and I will elaborate on it: If information can't come from a player, it is impossible to get any information on the game as non-players don't have access to any of the features in game. Even the people who write magazine articles are writing information that they either got from a player, or they found out themselves from playing. From what I see, the only way I can get information is if someone posts information about it and then I take that. (BTW I will have a magazine article that I will include for information) Garth of NEaB 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If player writeups are the sole source, then we can't have an article. An independent non-trivial review will contain details of gameplay. Guy 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And how is an independent non-trivial review going to come into being if it can't be written by players? It can't happen, it's impossible for any game to have information that doesn't come from a player of that game, because people who don't play that game can't say what is in it unless they know about that game! I do have articles that are written by players for publication in an actual magazine that isn't affiliated with Nowhere-Else and Beyond. ( Also, I have found a game article that doesn't appear to have any other noted sources: Wyvern (online game)) Garth of NEaB 18:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple. One of the big gaming magazines writes up the current crop of browser games. If none of the big gaming magazines have written it up, then it almost certainly fails the inclusion guidelines. Guy 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If I can chime in, Garth, JzG isn't acting personally towards you; he's just explaining the widely accepted standards for starting new WP articles. As further advice, the first thing that you would need to do to create an article would be to establish notability through verifiable and reliable sources. (Follow those links for more information about each of those policies/guidelines). As a threshold matter, if there aren't some external sources discussing a game, it's not ready yet for inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:WEB discusses the standards that apply to websites, but as a general rule of thumb, if there aren't two "non-trivial" reliable sources discussing the site, it won't be found sufficiently "notable" for wikipedia. (I discussed this issue with another editor regarding a role-playing game recently -- see here, item 4, and thereafter).

The best thing to do might be to canvas any relevant chat groups or e-mail the author and see if they know of any reviews. If not, your best options are to create a page outside of Misplaced Pages (there's no shame in that), or to start up an (off-Misplaced Pages) campaign to write to some of the leading gaming or web magazines and request that they review the game. Thanks, TheronJ 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to find these articles, I have never said I wouldn't, only that they have to be players to review the game (which he stated would not be a secondary source). I am also trying to bring to your attention the multiple games that are not listed in any gaming magazines I know of, and their only visible source of information is from the main site and its subsidiaries, just look at the List of MMORPGs, it's full of links to articles like that. Garth of NEaB 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Chances are, when someone notices them, they will get deleted. I know the policy is enforced mostly when someone notices things, but (1) it's a volunteer project; and (2) the editors do work very hard. Thanks, TheronJ 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another question: Would it be possible for the people who delete these articles to leave a message in the Talk page of that article for maybe a week before it was deleted, or on the creators talk page because, had I known it was that close to being deleted I would have tried to find secondary sources sooner. I know it's not required, but it is helpful, and it was a bit odd expecting to see the article and then find it gone without a reason given (Except in the deletion logs). Garth of NEaB 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We have several thousand new articles posted each day, of which the majority (sadly) are speedy deletion candidates. Most are removed within minutes. A delay of a week or so would leave Misplaced Pages's charity-funded servers swamped by trash. Within that time, we would have a large minority of our articles being speedy deletion candidates, with more pouring in by the minute, the majority of them stealing bandwidth from a not-for-profit organisation in order to promote themselves or tell the world that their friend is a gay. So we evaporate first and ask people to get it right second. Suggestions for other policies are welcome (although not on Guy's talk page per se) and should address the overall reality, not a single page amongst the multitude. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

When I said "these articles", I mean valid articles that have true information from the actual site, or game. (Referring only to MMORPGs) These articles are hard to write because "secondary information" is very hard to come by since it can't come from the site itself, or directly from players. I completely understand why most articles are deleted right away as this site is full of people who just post nonsense, but for a seemingly valid article thats only problem is not having enough secondary information I don't see why it was deleted without prior warning. Garth of NEaB 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is only a problem if your primary commitment is to documenting games rather then building an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. Anyone who wants to find out what NEaB is about can do so trivially easily. Meanwhile, until yesterday we had no article on Giovanni Punto. Guy 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy article, the Nowhere-Else and Beyond article should not have been deleted that quickly. In fact it should have been a proposed deletion, or it should have been tagged with {{cleanup-verify}}, since it wasn't nonsense and only needed more reliable sources. Garth of NEaB 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what is known as Wikilawyering. The article made no credible claim of notability. Feel free to rewrite it, establishing notability from reliable secondary sources. You have the original to work from. Guy 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I am looking at them and seeing that only the articles that are either pure gibberish or are obvious vandalism are removed quickly and without prior warning. The articles that are not meant to be trash should have some prior warning, even if it's not a rule it is common courtesy. Even if the article I wrote didn't prove any of what it said in it, it was still a valid article not meant to clutter up Misplaced Pages, but rather add to it. Garth of NEaB 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See the bit about fixing it with reliable sources to establish its significance and verify the content? Do that. If you can't, process is irrelevant. If you can, further discussion is unnecessary. Guy 19:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloody wonderful! Just... perfect!

Seconded. That made me laugh and scare my office neighbour. Well done. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

I'm still waiting for a response about YouTube and what to do with that. The article in question has been deleted now, but I'm still curious on how we are to proceed. See User_talk:JzG#YouTube memes article. JROBBO 22:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. The answer is to work on the section on YouTube personalities, with a brief (cited from external sources) synopsis of the ones which have been most significant. If you need the deleted content, I will userfy it for you. Guy 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute user is repeatedly removing the cited fact that it is not a canidate for accreditation. Arbusto 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you review Alansohn's comments and edits. Arbusto 18:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell this Alansohn (talk · contribs) to stop calling my edits vandalism, bad faith attempt by Arbusto, my edits are blatant violations of WP:POV and "your own personal POV about this school and other school articles that fail your arbitrary standards", POV, "your malicious handiwork", your offensive efforts will not be tolerated and so on. Arbusto 04:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Review Alansohn's threats to block Helical Rift (talk · contribs) (a new user). Clearly a violation of WP:BITE. Arbusto 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  / talk  13:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

More Emmalina nonsense

Okay, so I reread the DRV closing today after seeing that you reprotected the redirect this morning. Do you really think it's a good idea to go against the closing here, especially since there doesn't seem to be clear consensus to keep the redirect at this point, especailly since you've offered no input on the talk page? Can I ask you remove the protection in good faith and not add some undue weight to a certain side of the discussion without input and without current consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because there is clear consensus to not have an article, but to redirect it. The fact that the YouTube memes article was removed is secondary; they can be covered in YouTube until they get too big and then we can fork (as long as they are properly cited). Guy 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there? The latest consensus check seems to be that there...well...isn't any, now that the YouTube memes article is gone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really; the YouTube memes should be covered as a section in YouTube. Feel free to help ROBBO with that, I think you may well be able to. Guy 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really know. I only know ofthe newsworthy ones like geriatric1927 and lonelygirl15. And Emmalina, who is conspicuously absent from the way we've handled every other newsworthy YouTuber. I'm actually more concerned with your actions regarding the protection while discussion is ongoing, especially following the DRV result. Did you even discuss it with Xoloz at all? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We'd already had the discussion. Several times. YTMND is a good model here: we briefly mention the popular YTMNDs, but leave it to the YTMND wiki to publish the original research. There is a pressing need to purge Misplaced Pages of YouTube links, a very large proportion of them appear to be copyvios. Guy 09:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the copyvio issue w/YouTube has to do with this one. YTMND is a poor model in this instance - YTMNDs don't get the type of news coverage that certain YouTube celebs do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the term "slebrity" to distinguish the famous-for-being-famous from actual celebrities, i.e. those whoa re actually celebrated for some ability :-) Guy 12:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm actually taking this somewhat seriously right now. How do you contrast two very different things? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I think you have hit upon the problem: you are taking it seriously. Emmalina is a bored teenager who got a small amount of notoriety which will probably embarrass her when she is older. On a global scale this almost but not quite rises to negligible importance. Meanwhile, until a couple of days ago we did not have an article on Giovanni Punto, who was, in his day, more famous than Beethoven. I find it really hard to take YouTube memes seriously. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not the YouTube faq, and frankly anybody who wants to know about Emmalina can find out trivially easily. I have no evidence that readers want to find out about her, only that a small number of obsessive teenaged writers want to write about her (and judging from the article as deleted, without bothering about all those tiresome reliable sources, either). They should find something more productive to do, or get a girlfriend or something. Or maybe start their own Encyclopaedia Cruftannica. And that is my serious take on it. Guy 13:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess one person's problem is another solution. I do wish you wouldn't let your personal biases regarding the subject stand in way of doing the right thing here, but I know full well I can't stop you, as much as I understand where you're coming from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm frustrated, this isn't a reflection on you as much as desire to have this resolved, and possibly by someone completely uninvolved, so I've started a topic at WP:AN just to try to get some neutral review. I have no question regarding your acting in good faith here, but it's obvious both of our biases are clouding things here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You are rather begging the question fo what is the right thing. Is my bias any better than yours? In my view YouTube is important and should be documented, the fact that it spawns memes is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia, the identities of some of those memes and how they spread is a matter easily worth a sentence or two, but anything more than a sentence or two on any of these memes - any of them - is, to my mind, excessive, especially given the way people are having to rewrite policy to redefine reliable in order that we can use unreliable sources to cover them. Plus, I don't see the need. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, what's the problem with going and writing about things that take a little bit of effort to find out about? Subjects like this are not so much low hanging fruit as maggotty half-rotten windfalls. Perhaps I will be in a better frame of mind after I have been to see Steven Isserlis play, this evening :-) Guy 15:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's biases are better than anyone else's. We both want consistency, and, consistently, we've had articles on the people who transcend YouTube into greater attention - that was essentially the argument at the Notable memes AfD. While you feel they don't deserve more than a line mention, you also wouldn't get any consensus regarding a single-line merge of geriatric1927, lonelygirl15, or the evolution of dance guy. All I'm looking for is that consistency with this article. But we agree on the last part - cello has a way of making things better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Jeff, you are pitching your biases against mine. In this case there was an AfD which supported not having a separate article. You'll see fomr my past discussions with ROBBO that whether or not the YT memes article exists, we should aim to cover the memes briefly in a block, and that can be in YouTube for now until it grows to the point where it needs to be forked. As to whether there would eb a consensus for a single-line merge of Lonelygirl, it might just be worth a try. The sooner we start being an encyclopaedia instead of a cruft-o-rama the better. Guy 22:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your kind words of support during my recent RfA. I've always had deep respect for (if not always agreement with) your opinions, so I am particularly humbled that you would consider me worthy of the buttons. If I can ever be of any help with an admin project or just by providing a pair of fresh, idsinterested eyes to review an article, do not hesitate to let me know. If I wasn't on the worng side of the pond, I'd buy you a pint of Abbot Ale (or make you a proper cuppa) to show my gratitude, but i do fear that my simple "thanks" will have to do for now. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western

I had questions about the edits that were made to the Pacific Western University article, and rolled back the article so that they could be discussed on the talk page here: . I don't think any of your changes were bad, but I think with the pages' recent troubles they need to be more clearly substantiated and discussed before we make them. Sirmob 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Interviewees

Hello,

I am a freelance writer working on an article about the subculture of people who use Misplaced Pages the way the rest of us use MySpace. So I’m looking to interview several Misplaced Pages “addicts” as well as people who, while they don’t consider themselves addicted, do spend a good amount of time on the site editing articles, patrolling for errors, seeking out false articles, fighting for changes they made to be kept in, and otherwise contributing to the site. If you are interested please email me at brianrhodges@gmail.com.

This offer is open to anybody else reading this, not just this particular user. But please, don’t come to me with if you’re hoping I’ll be exposing conspiracies or censorship issues amongst the wikipedia higher-ups. That’s not really what this article is about.

Thanks,

Brian68.39.158.205 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• See Simon Pulsifer. ☺ Uncle G 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Improved AFD discussion

• Wyvern (online game) (AfD discussion)

I've persuaded the proponents of the article to cite sources to support their arguments that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please revisit the discussion, read what is cited, and add your comments on how far they go towards satisfying WP:WEB. Uncle G 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gah! This is a perfect example of the kind of AfD which makes it really hard to be open-minded. Aggressive demands to "do your homework" by visiting links which are not cited in the article and absolutely no changes whatsoever to the article itself - the link to the game is still 404 right now. No sources, 100% OR, and lots of arm-waving. Guy 09:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD FYI

Based on some of your edits in the past where you've cited it, I think you may be interested in this MfD debate: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know where they are coming from, but I think it needs fixing not deletion. Guy 22:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Newyorkbrad 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of a Deletion you did.

Your speedy deletion of Siantonian Proof has resulted in a recreation. I've listed it as a G4 CSD candidate, but I thought I should point out that while you were probably right to speedy delete it, you cited the Patent Nonsense criterion, which the material didn't meet at all. The speedy could have been justified under the attack page standard and the AFD result was inevitable, so I doubt anybody'll fuss at you, but I've seen RFCs and asinine policy proposals over lesser offenses than citing the wrong CSD when deleting something. So, I figured I'd give you a friendly pointer on that. The Literate Engineer 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That one is staying deleted, and if I need to WP:SALT it I will. Guy 22:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:your response to my comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

Thanks for responding, and apprently two users have warned him. If you don't mind, can I ask you a couple questions regarding this type of situation since your administrator. There are a couple images of his I tagged as copyright violation, but I think 2 I couldn't find a link for, was a wrong to tag them without a link? Also do you think {{PUIdisputed}} tag should have been better in this situation? Thanks. - Tutmosis 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's tricky, but in this case the rate of creation demanded urgent action. Normally you can just leave it to OrphanBot. Tagging is good, you can tag as unsourced using {{no copyright holder}}. Guy 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A good tag but it seems wrong for such a situation since the copyright status was provided by the user: pd-self, but the images didn't seem to reflect that as being true. Also since it's tagged as pd-self, I dont think OrphanBot would pick such information up. - Tutmosis 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this one is beyond my simple brain. I'd ask at the Village Pump or WikiEN-L - or maybe one of the copyright gurus at WP:AN. Sorry, that's one for the "too hard" basket. Guy 11:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for your help. I hope you didn't mind me asking. :) - Tutmosis 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

International Copper Association

The article International Copper Association was deleted as "public relations spam". Could you please restore the article to my userspace so that I could try to turn it into something acceptable? -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with this. JoshuaZ 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy 11:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_5#Mark_Dalton_.28porn_star.29 - note my comments here. The DRV requester's claims that the article passes WP:PORNBIO are not true, and (may) have been made purely to get the article relisted on AFD. Proto::type 14:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Guy 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Devilmaycares RfC

Hi, could I request you certify the Devilmaycares RfC, otherwise this RfC would technically be invalid. Thanks very much... Addhoc 15:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't, as I did not try to resolve the problems, but there are others who could certify it. Guy 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As it happens this diff is currently used in the Devilmaycares RfC. Addhoc 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your the only person to comment on his talk page regarding his entire behavior and not just one sub-set of actions. ---J.S (t|c) 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blomby Car

You deleted my article. There is some discussion about it at User_talk:PresN Sandman30s 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I refer to this article that you speedied here. Please also see the conversation at User talk:BlueValour#Blomby Car. I initially prodded on the notability question but was persuaded that blowing holes in the project to record all MAME arcade games was a bad idea. I would ask that you undelete and, if necessary, put it up for an AfD so that the broader issue can be discussed. BlueValour 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ABM & Gecas was deleted as a non-notable company, and Blomby Car also made no assertion of notability. Guy 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please can someone then clean up the "List of arcade games" - I would hate for any more of my articles to be deleted as this takes a lot of my time and expensive South African bandwidth to do. I am merely going through this list, and MAME list, and adding them for the sake of completeness. Is there somewhere I can check for notability before I add a new article? Sandman30s 09:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if you can't find at least two non-trivial treatments in reliable sources independent of the subject (e.g. substantial reviews in a major gaming magazine, not one of ten reviewed in a market survey) then the subject is likely to fail the verifiability policy. I do regularly clean lists of redlinks, largely to save people wasting their time creating articles on trivial subjects. Time was when a list of redlinks was helpful in increasing coverage of a subject, but these days we have so many articles - especially in pop culture - that it is getting hard to find genuinely notable games which have no articles, and the pendulum has swung the other way, with spam and unverifiable articles being a much bigger problem than lack of coverage. At least in this area. I completely support attempts to document that which is genuinely and verifiably significant but not trivially obtainable via Google, so if you have a stack of old gaming magazines in the cupboard please do cite them as sources and redress the massive bias towards things that happened in the last five minutes. Guy 10:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am too dumb to understand what most of this means :) However, my articles have nothing to do with magazine or online reviews. It is merely taken from MAME including a history and description file within MAME itself. If I find the game to be personally significant then I will add more content from google, or play the game a bit further on to see what happens. Right now I am too scared to add any more content. Sandman30s 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think MAME is counted as a reliable source. Per verifiability policy, we must have enough reliable sources to check both the facts and the neutrality of any article. For many subjects this involves actual work, which is shunned by those who consider Google to be as far as they need look. Misplaced Pages is not Google. So, by all means go through MAME but please make sure that you can find at least a couple of good, non-trivial sources for each subject. If you can't find any, then best to leave it until someone can find sources (or not bother at all) since policy requires them. Guy 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Dalton (porn star)

I would ask you to revisit your recommendation in light of evidence from Men Magazine itself as to the validity of the statement that Mark Dalton won the "Man of the Year" award. The link is available at the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 5#Mark Dalton (porn star), but I am also providing it here. Thanks.—Chidom   16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic Online University

Can you speedy Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic Online University? Arbusto 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, in this edit a user claims this mill is accredited in the UK. What do you think? Arbusto 08:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Category:Tennessee Association of Christian Schools? Arbusto 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • MfD it, it appears to be barrow-pushing but I can't think of a speedy category. Guy 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy ANMAB, redirect for deleted article. Arbusto 00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

You know what happens when page protection is put in place? If it's on a version the anti-mainstreamers like they stop discussing on the talkpage. If it's on a version that they don't like they complain loudly until it's unprotected. This is exactly what occurred when I was blocked inappropriately. There is almost no bargaining with them. They are tireless tendentious POV-pushers, and arbcom seems to be content to allow them to destroy mainstream articles since they apparently represent "minority scientific opinions". What a lark! How does Fred think he is qualified over myself to determine what a "minority scientific opinion" is? --ScienceApologist 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that in this case it's less likely to happen. Although all page protctions are, by definition on the wrong version, it is pretty easy to document what constitutes mainstream, and the existence of the ArbCom case suggests a halt to edit warring while the committee deliberates. Read the proposed decisions and look which way the wind is blowing. In the end, whatever Tommy might say, WP:NPOV means that we must reflect the dominant view. So: mainstream must be mentioned in articles on fringe views, but the converse is not true. Treatment should be proportionate, so tiny fringe views should not be the subject of vast walled gardens of articles. The best solution here is to stay calm, wait for ArbCom to decide, and if (as is likely) they ban Tommy from pseudoscience articles, you will be left with a lower level of heat, a clear message, and a community of editors who are, in the end, reasonable people. You may not agree with Ian, but I suspect you would hold him in somewhat higher regard than Tommy. Use the dispute resolution processes to attract more editors. The more people come along,t he more the balance is likely to reflect orthodox opinion because, after all, that is what mainstream is all about. Just my $0.02. Guy 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Crum page blanking

Guy -

You don't blank a page which is up for deletion, even if it is User:StevenCrum. Indeed, I personally consider this a de-facto example of blanking vandalism. I do sympathize with your stand, but let's do this in the right way. --EMS | Talk 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually he blanked it, or rather replaced the version up for discussion with a barely-coherent rant, so I blanked it to save his embarrassment. Guy 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's all been a barely-coherent rant IMO. What changed was the content, not the acceptability. I really saw your action as unfair to others, as the result was much more acceptable than anything the Steve had posted. As for any embarrasment, I would point out that

1. Steve had brought it on himself, and
2. that once the MfD is concluded, there will be nothing left to embarass Steve, not even the history.

--EMS | Talk 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought the original version was kind of coherent, just barking mad. And seriously I don't think deleting it will help - the problem is the user, not the content. We need either to persuade him to stop it, or to ban him. Guy 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

GFP Personal Finance Manager deletion

GFP Personal Finance Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GFP Personal Finance Manager

I disagree, if you type gfp and “personal finance” on google you will see that the first 10 result pages are about the software, some of then not in English (Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, French), indeed the software is more used for people that does not speak English natively. Even if you type only GFP on google you will see that that 7th result is about GFP, but it isn’t in Enlgish. It was published in an article on Italian Magazine named “PC Professional” (It’s obviously written in Italian) as you can see clicking on the link in this article: http://gfd.sourceforge.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=12. There are articles about GFP on http://opensourceinstall.org/ (In Chinese), and http://www.clubedohardware.com.br/ (In Brazilian Portuguese). In any of these articles it is indicated as a good Open source and multi platform alternative to MS Money. Just because its popularity in other languages is grater them in English, isn’t a reason to remove it from English idiom articles (the idea is that with the English article on wikipedia users that speak others languages in witch GFP is more used can write their idiom translation). And there are other similar software topics on wikipedia see, some of then not so expressive: http://en.wikipedia.org/JGnash http://en.wikipedia.org/Buddi for example. Many softwares that run on Linux are release 0 is just a matter of version control discipline; when the developer advice the user that the system will be more complex when reach the 1.0 release that will be considered full featured. There are others similar OpenSource software that are 1.0 relase but haven't all features that GFP has.

Hi JzG, I have only one more thing to say, GFP web site was ranked as one of the 7 best sites for "Personal Finance Manager" according to search engines result, as you can see here: http://www.best7sites.com/finance/finance7/Personal%20Finance%20Manager/index.htm?k=personal%20finance

Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg

I hope you realize that you are endorsing a bad faith deletion here. The only reason why it was nominated was because User:Panarjedde couldn't find anything to revert in the Bayern Munich Junior Team. He was following around my every edit and he couldn't find anything to revert in that article. Kingjeff 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't give a toss about your personal fight. Guy 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my personal fight. This is about what you're doing. By endorsing the deletion, you're essentially saying it's ok to do bad faith editing. Kingjeff 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, by entering the discussion I'm saying it's OK to delete unfree images, and pointing out to you the crucial difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech which applies in this case. Guy 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not when it was a bad faith nomination. Kingjeff 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's an appeal to motives, a logical fallacy. You need to defend the image at WP:DRV by reference to policy. This you have not done, other than to assert that in your opinion press pack images are free, which is false in the sense that the word "free" is used in respect of images in Misplaced Pages. Guy 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You want a policy. He's violated this policy. It's impossible for me to think this way of him. Kingjeff 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That policy says nothing about images. The discussion is about the image. Guy 08:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tapestries MUCK, Albedo Anthropomorphics

Guy, I don't mean to imply bad faith, but I was wondering what research you did on the two above pieces before nominating them for deletion. Anything beyond counting Google hits? I ask because Albedo is very well known -- I knew of it, and I'm not even a furry fan, just a comic book fan -- and Tapestries, while admittedly harder to source due to its theme, likewise seems to be very well-known, at least among its audience and their detractors. There also seem to be quite a few "furry"-related deletions proposed within the last day or so. Some of them, like the hyper-thing, rightfully so, I'd say, but the nomination of a handful of apparently quite popular and well-known entities like these two and Furcadia strikes me as an odd coincidence. Did anything in particular happen to draw your attention to these articles.

I apologize if this seems confrontational; it's not meant to be -- those are honest questions -- but it seems I'm too poor a writer to phrase them in a better manner, at least at 6 AM. Shimeru 10:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I read around a bit, although I freely admit that I have trouble telling good from bad when it comes to furrydom. I was going through the furry category looking for junk, since I found several of highly questionable merit as a result of the WikiFur DRV. I don't have a problem being proved wrong (a crap article can be improved or deleted, either way is good for the project). Do you really think, though, that Albedo deserves three articles? Essentially I am suspicious of walled gardens. Articles whose significance is established only in respect of other articles which refer back to them tend to be the mark of excessive zeal on the part of a particular group of enthusiasts, and when (as with these) they are all unreferenced, we have a problem that needs fixing. Adding good sources is always welcome :-) Guy 11:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that does explain a lot. Not sure about the related articles, but I think Albedo definitely does. The rest, I'm having more trouble with, as I'm not that familiar with them myself -- learned more than I ever thought I'd want to know during the last day or two, though. :p Don't want to be seen as attacking you, because I've done the same thing, going through a category. Of course, the last time I did that, it was schools. Ouch. Shimeru 11:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, I can see how that might have been... educational. Guy 12:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

to be mopped

Greetings,

God is an astronaut, now a redirect to God is an Astronaut, has history and previously housed early version of the article before the author cut-and-pasted it to the properly capitalised version. There is a single author before the cut-and-paste. Does that warrant the effort of history merging?

In addition, one of Image:Giaawiki.jpg and Image:Giaa logo.jpg can be deleted as they are redundant. --user:Qviri 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Damn a band article I can't delete. Done. Guy 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Arb Com

Hello Guy, I decided to go for it too. Thanks for the encouragement. I figure the more the merrier. FloNight 00:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, great! You'll get my vote. You should be a shoo-in, I think. Guy 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

GoodCop

Hello there -- I noticed that you've commented on the blocking of GoodCop. The alleged reason is legal threats, but I really don't see any. Mind pointing them out? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 07:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated allegations of libel Guy 09:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wii Startup Disc

I noticed that you voted for delete on the AfD page of Wii Startup Disk. User:TJ Spyke has provided us with the following information: "In the new IGN Weekly (IGN Weekly Holiday 06), they have the final Wii box and take everything in it out. There was no startup disc there (they also re-confirm that Wii Sports will just come in the same cheap cardboard that Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt came in)." Please consider changing your vote to redirect, as this disc does not exist, and people may search for it and need a redirect. A consensus for this issue would be excellent. Scepia 07:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. People won't come to Misplaced Pages looking for a startup disc if there isn't one in the box, they'll go to the manufacturer or RTFM. I wonder if we have an article on the Windows XP boot CD? Guy 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Mattisse (me) re Starwood & Rosencomet

I have just received notification that a Requests for comment/Mattisse has been opened against my behavior regarding articles related to Rosencomet and Starwood Festival. BostonMA suggested your name as a person who might be willing to make a comment on it. So I am bringing this RFC to you attention Thank you! Mattisse(talk) 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland Steamer

Hello sir:

This is to notify you that this article is up for deletion again. I reviewed its records, and I have noticed that you took the unprecedented action of taking it to DRV to have it deleted. You may want to chime in again, but as things go, even to this newbie it seems futile. Mr Spunky Toffee 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One subjects oneself to somewhat random questions when one stands for ArbCom elections

Hi JzG,

I was somewhat surprised at your stated disatisfaction with "Requests for Adminship" process. Could you suggest one or two RfAs of "worthy" rejected candidates? I don't think the process is perfect: it certainly creates more stress in a candidate's life than it should; however, I think cases of the "wrong outcome" are really quite rare, and I'd like to see what examples underlie your unhappiness. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I have added the response to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for JzG#Questions from Mailer Diablo, along with the original question. Guy 23:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I certainly agree that Jeff got short-shrift (and Kappa before him, in the single most mean-spirited RfA ever.) Hostility arising from legitimate wiki-philosophical differences is a sad thing to see on an RfA, I agree. I have absolutely no idea how to address that problem, however. Actually, as I consider the question, it's quite depressing that this kind of difficulty is more likely to afflict an intellectual candidate, who has taken the time to think deeply about wiki-issues. Thanks for the insight. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

clarification

In your reply to my question, you said "...articles on views which are dismissed or refuted by the scientific consensus are treated in a way which , while it provides full information about the subject (provided it is verifiable from neutral sources of course) leaves te reader aware of the extent of its acceptance or lack thereof..." (emphasis added).

Do you really mean that sources must themselves be neutral to be used? If so, is this only a requirement when presenting minority views in opposition to a scientific consensus? Certainly many articles (particularly on controversial topics) employ non-neutral sources, and rightly so (for example, it takes a pretty tortured definition of neutral to say that more than a small portion of the sources, representing either side, in the intelligent design article are neutral, but they are used in a way that comes pretty close to an NPOV presentation).--ragesoss 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, my answer was ambiguous. Thank you, I have clarified it at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for JzG#Question from Ragesoss. Guy 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Guy, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as a expand my participation on Misplaced Pages. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Some created a RFAr against you and didn't bother informing you of it. So I guess I am officially notifying you of it. semper fi — Moe 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the user and case was reverted :) semper fi — Moe 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A strange one, that. I suggested he go to dispute resolution rather than edit warring and posting complaints to WP:ANI, and for that he files an ArbCom case against me? Seems like maybe he's not here to build an encyclopaedia. Guy 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

DRV question

You seem to be wise in the ways of DRV, so I thought I'd ask you this. If I undelete Image:Nikkor lenses.jpg (the subject of the discussion here), notify everyone who's seemed interested on their talk page, slap a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag on it and start up the standard discussion on the talk page of the image, leaving a note on DRV saying "the party is that way", will anything particularly unpleasant happen to me? I ask because I recall hearing that DRV is home to some particularly dangerous varieties of man-eating proceduralism, and I am generally fond of not being devoured. --Robth 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I think that's perfectly reasonable. Well, OK, people might bitch but in this case I think it's a fair use of boldness. Guy 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I went ahead and did it. --Robth 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Forocoches

Please review my reworking of the Forocoches article proposed for undeletion. Uaxuctum 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A fine job of work (but what does forocoches mean?). You want it moved back in? Guy 09:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ForoCoches means simply "CarForum" in Castilian Spanish (ForoCarros would be the equivalent in Latin American Spanish). The main topic of the portal and forum is automobiles, hence the name; but there is also a large subsection for off-topic discussions. If you think the article is already acceptable for inclusion, then move it back in. Uaxuctum 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're nicked!

Glad you liked the Matthew Boyden edit. Shame I messed up the summary with a few typos (you can't preview the damn things). Actually, I would love to know Sgt. Boyden's take on the world's major opera composers. Maybe we could compare his choices with those of June Ackland, DS Burnside and the late lamented "Tosh" Lynes. Then we could create List of major opera composers according to Sun Hill nick. Bound to be one of Misplaced Pages's finest articles. --Folantin 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your nationality

I had no idea you were from the United Kingdom. My respect for you has gone from this:

|----------------------------------------------------------|

to this:

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Congratulations on this milestone in your adminship!

(note: each - represents fifteen Chipping Sodburys)--Dreaded Walrus 12:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh! I never knew it was a secret. Back when I were a lad we had a controller in an asphalt plant at Sodding Chipbury. Oh how we laughed... Guy 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Cyber Club Undeletion attempt

I often argue about my vision of the way things should be because I can see my vision very clearly. In order to gain a proper perspective I have created my vision for you to more fairly assess the question of whether wikipedia would be better with separate Playboy Online and/or Playboy Cyber Club pages. See the template that is of the type I referenced above at Template:Playboy. I would appreciate your reconsideration of your delete/undelete opinion on this question in light of my creation. TonyTheTiger 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm still struggling to care. Try writing an article on something that is not trivially available from thirty seconds of Googling? Seriously, I have had it up to here with articles on crap off Teh Internets. This is nothing personal, I'm sure you're a fine editor (some of your articles are just the kind of "wow, I never knew that!" that makes Misplaced Pages great), but the idea of an encyclopaedia largely made up of articles on trivial porn subjects fills me with apathy. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate your reply. Unfortunately, claiming apathy after voicing a negative vote where you are 1/3rd of the electorate seems wrong. You are casting 1/3 of the possible votes against undeletion. This is not apathy. If you are struggling to care, I would appreciate it if you were to soften your 1/3 or the electorate affirmation. What I am saying is that I have created several useful templates. Template:Playboy would be greatly improved if I could get you to WP:AGF and allow me to recreate an informative page. Since you realize already that most of what I do eventually takes the form of an informative interesting contribution why don't you WP:AGF that I will do so here. Playboy online is a $50 million/year business. It is the fastest growing part of the playboy empire. It is the possibly the future of Playboy. There is a lot that can be written on this subject without plastering porncruft photos of girls who you only feel are notable for having appeared nude for the business. I can do this. Please WP:AGF and reverse or at least soften your vote. TonyTheTiger 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It is the site I don't care about. I think we already have more than enough porncruft without adding to it. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are saying that because you don't like the porncruft at http://www.playboy.com you don't think wikipedia should have a separate article for Playboy Online. That does not make sense. Do you think we should delete every page that properly addresses a topic you think we have enough of. It is likely you are either a Republican or a Democrat, Pro-Abortion or Right to Life, or on one side of the fence or another on some issue. Would you cast a vote to delete an article describing the other side of the fence? If it were already deleted would you cast a vote to keep it deleted? Help me understand.TonyTheTiger 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the fact that I think we already have comprehensive coverage of the Playboy organisation and have no pressing need of more. It would be remarkable if any pornography publisher these days did not have a website. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So what you are saying is that although I know that most pages you, TonyTheTiger, create are interesting and teach me about things in new ways, wikipedia has a lot of pages for Playboy and I don't think you could effectively teach me anything interesting or in new ways about Playboy that would be properly located in a Playboy Cyber Club or Playboy Online article. TonyTheTiger 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a masterful summary. I believe there is little to be said which is both of merit and cannot be covered in the Playboy article. Of course this is just my opinion. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. Do you feel that it is incorrect for most conglomerate companies to have separate articles for their most important divisions as is the case with most other business conglomerates? TonyTheTiger 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I work for a Fortune 500 company most of whose divisions do not have articles. They are discussed in the main article. This is not a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to draft what I think the pages should look like. I concur that there has been excessive porncruft in prior editions of the related pages (User:TonyTheTiger/temp). I now realize that my greatest credential is not my history of interesting contributions as a page creator, but my experience in fighting sportscrufting of fans who wanted their favorite players included in the Five-tool player page. You should take a look at the cruft that was on the page before I got involved by editing and setting policy. There had been talk of taking down the page

I still have to add some categories, but the following two pages are as they should be

User:TonyTheTiger/PO

User:TonyTheTiger/PCGOY

I still have some more editing to do to User:TonyTheTiger/PCC, but it is getting closer to acceptable given the start I had with User:TonyTheTiger/temp. I would suggest you note the discussion pages of Five-tool player and User:TonyTheTiger/PCC. I think if I can get the same kind of help to narrow things down that I did with five tool player, this can be an effective page.

Suspicion denied.

You recently left this in the schools discussion: "I have a sneaking suspicion that none of those who assert "all schools are notable" were born before 1980."

I was most certainly born long before 1980, and I have personal knowledge regarding several of the others who've advocated that view in this debate that indicates otherwise as well.

A backhanded accusation of "everyone who disagrees with me is probably immature" isn't really all that relevant to the debate where you typed it, so I decided to respond here instead. It is a little humorous, because, to be quite frank, I was beginning to suspect that a majority of those who don't see the inherent notability of schools are teenagers or younger. I certainly would not have shared that suspicion without reading yours first, and I commit to pushing that notion out of the logical part of my mind. Hope you'll do the same.  ;) Unfocused 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't meant like that. I just feel that maturity lends a certain perspective, and also tends to reduce the tendency to hysterical arm-waving. "All schools are inherently notable" is, frankly, pointless verbiage, since it implies either such a low bar to notability as to make the word meaningless, or parity between all schools, from Dunghill Junior to Winchester. It's an absurd premise. There is a scale of notability, and all subjects lie somewhere along that scale. At some point along that scale we stick a stake in the ground and say that is the level of notability which is worth documenting on Misplaced Pages. The quasi-religious view that all foo (be they schools, pokemon, ships, micronations or politicians) should be included by virtue of mere existence is utterly destructive of any attempt to rationally debate any given subject. Guy 19:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

This is uncivil, but let's move beyond that. You seriously think there are no Greek POV-pushers to deal with in WP? If in doubt check my contribs! :-) •NikoSilver• 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• The "silliness" was in earlier edit summaries and the "nutshell" which had been inverted. I changed it again very shortly afterwards because I did not read that version carefully and it, too, was inverted. As to the "no Greek POV-pushers", clearly I am an evil rouge admin whose sole agenda is to conceal form the world the levels of controversy surrounding Greek issues. <cough>Cyprus</cough> :o) Guy (Help!) 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ha! I'm that rouge user over at Cyprus, FYROM, Turkey, Smyrna etc. I also have high connections to the American govt and drive a UFO to go to work. Beware! This is your last warning! :-) •NikoSilver• 09:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

I've taken the bold and quite possibly very rash decision to take this to WP:DRV, as you did months ago. I've cited all the policy I can find, and I'm hoping for the best. I thought you should know. Mr Spunky Toffee 11:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Enviga

I removed your tags from this article. As it stood it was a heady mix of original research, Editoral comment and well.. chuff. Hopefully you agree that (and there is no other way to describe it) slash and burn brings it upto community standards. --Charlesknight 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Slash and burn is what I would have done if I was not mired in working through the user's contribs and trying to work out which was was up - your version is a huge improvement! Guy (Help!) 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Frustration! Help!

I'm totally frustrated by User:badlydrawnjeff. He can't refute the fact that Cleveland steamer blatantly violates policy, and can't come up with a good answer to say that it conforms with policy. He just says that it's already been decided. As I understand it, "consensus" does not override core Wiki policy. Am I wrong about that? Are there exceptions, and should they be noted in the policy pages? Mr Spunky Toffee 12:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff is an extreme inclusionist, but he is well aware of policy and he is a perfectly reasonable person. If you can't agree with him then you can agree to differ. Please play the ball, not the man. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll back down. Mr Spunky Toffee 12:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Lindsey German Picture

Lindsey German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sorry you have been dragged into this (again). I am happy to provide reasons for removing the picture. I have just not bothered to argue with JK because he is not interested in a reasonable discussion. He has only one agenda.

JK is a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, an extreme left wing sect that is obsessed with Lindsey German and the Socialist Workers Party. On 2 July 2005 JK travelled up to the Make Poverty History rally in Scotland and proceeded to take dozens of pictures of Lindsey German and her partner John Rees - so many that they thought he must be a police officer until I explained he was part of the CPGB. He then tried to upload the most unflattering pictures to Misplaced Pages. Here is an example of the picture JK has continually tried to upload to the John Rees page on Misplaced Pages;

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Rees_%28activist%29&diff=33733945&oldid=33732741

JK will try and present himself as a disinterested contributor. In reality he hates everything that Lindsey German and John Rees stand for. Hence his obsession with them and hence his obsessional behaviour on their Misplaced Pages pages for the past 18 months. No normal contributor behaves in this way. A single decent and uncontroversial picture is fine for short biographies like John and Lindsey’s and its probably a good rule of thumb to follow generally across Misplaced Pages so far as short biographies are concerned in order to avoid edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashion1 (talk • contribs)

That is an appeal to motives, a logical fallacy (maybe all his pictures are of similar quality, who knows?). I have seen plenty of normal contributors behave in seemingly irrational ways. This is a difference of opinion, and should be settled through dispute resolution. I think the picture is fine, it shows her with two other prominent left-wing activists, both of whom have articles, at an important event. I don't think the picture at John Rees (activist) adds anything as it is redundant per the somewhat higher quality picture already in that article, but this picture does add something and frankly your continued use of the term "vandalism" to describe not only its insertion but also its reinsertion by other editors (including me) is every bit as problematic as what you complain of in JK. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that the picture he tried to insert on the John Rees biography is redundant. Its also deliberately unflattering. Why would JK pick that picture to post (over and over again) out of all the dozens he took of John Rees on the day? The answer to that question (which you don’t ask) is informative. It is because JK is not interested in adding to the article. JK is interested in trying to post unflattering pictures of people he is obsessed with. He is trying to do the same to the biography of John’s partner Lindsey German. See a pattern here? I am happy to go through whatever procedures are necessary to solve this dispute but I would appreciate it if you did not make threats towards me. My motives are honest, I just want to defence this biography against this obsessional nutter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashion1 (talk • contribs)

That's your interpretation. In practice I don't know because I have not seen the rest of his pictures. The warning is not anything personal, and neither is blocking you for violating WP:3RR - you have been edit-warring and completely ignoring attempts at discussion, that is problematic behaviour. So: take it to a dispute resolution process, please, and try to use objective statements in respect of the image itself rather than impute motives to the uploader. Or upload a better picture of German at the rally with some other prominent activists and make the issue moot. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Build your own

Build your own House and Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I dont understand why you deleted my article on Build your own house and home, i was clearly in the process of editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory Deegan (talk • contribs)

Because it made no assertion of the notability of the subject, and appeared to serve more to promote the subject than to describe it. A quick Google finds 15 unique hits, of which noe appear to be reliable sources for the purposes of verifying both the content and its neutrality. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done to maintain the page? Please excuse my naivety , im rather new.

Step 1: it needs to be the primary subject of a number of non-trivial treatments in reliable sources independent of the subject. As far as I can tell this is not yet the case. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Its existance is confirmed on medialive.ie where it is documented as homes magazine. User:Rory Deegan14:16, 16 November 2006

Mere existence is insufficient. Per policy, we must be able to verify both the content and the neutrality of the content by reference to reliable independent sources. If no such sources exist, which as far as I can tell they do not here, then we cannot have an article. In short: you need to get famous and then come to Misplaced Pages, not come to Misplaced Pages as part of your attempt to get famous. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Information is available on http://www.ppa.ie/Dyflin.html, this is a press organisation. It is also noted on http://www.medialive.ie/index.html, this is a advertising information website.

The first is evidence of existence and in any case not independent of the subject, the second is also not truly independent and in any case falls under the heading of trivial, since it is a storefront for selling advertising space (would you believe that a magazine is significant based on its advertising sales brochure?). Please do not re-create it again. Deletion review is over there → Guy (Help!) 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

Would you consider this block request as listed at AN/I? Another admin agreed that a block was in order but looks like it didn't happen. The problems are still continuing. Thanks. Ekantik 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because the problem seems to be in abeyance right now and the parties are discussing it on Talk, which is reasonable. This is a legitimate, if heated, difference of opinion between editors in good standing and acting in good faith. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You know when you read a talk page and feel silly...

I would just like to note that I feel silly about getting into an edit war over the pic' of Lindsey German. What a complete waste of time. Thanks for your level-headed comments.--JK the unwise 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedied speedy

LOL! That was the quickest turnaround I ever had on an AfD (Da Crew), gone within 15 minutes. Thanks for the quick response.  :) --Elonka 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ED talk deletion

I just responded to you, and in doing so, I couldn't resist quoting Empirse Strikes Back. I thought I'd take just a second to be sure I tell you that I'm just a big geek-- I'm not being flippant. In this whole ED mess, I have the easiest role. I'm not a ED troll (i promise!), I don't have a close relationship with anyone who was attacked by them, and I don't have a mop. I get to sit back and be yoda. I hope, in the grand scheme of things, my cautions about the subject help wikipedia, but never let that imply I don't have a definite respect for you who are on the frontlines, as it were. You in particular did something at some point that made me give you a mental thumbs up-- I don't remember what, I need a buddylist on this thing, I can never remember who is who, but somewhere along the way, your name got a possitive association so.. whatever you said or did I agreed with at some point-- thanks! lol. --Alecmconroy 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From what you say, I probably quoted Douglas Adams in delete summary or some such :-) Guy (Help!) 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions for Paul August

Hi Guy. I've answered your question. Thanks for asking. Paul August ☎ 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

Hi Guy,

Would you consider restoring Marsden-Donnelly harassment case? I've put some comments here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Proposed_decision with concerns about speedying pages that do not fit a strict definition of "attack page." I think this deletion would be controversial if sent to AfD, and that's a good reason to send it to AfD. My preference, however, would be to fix or stub the article instead. The case is a very important one in the history of Vancouver. People in this city still talk about it. Kla'quot 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought a redirect to Rachel Marsden would do the trick, but I have taken it to deletion review for consideration. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Kla'quot 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a problem.

Seethis, small puppies cry when they see the return of that ranty POV pushing version. --Charlesknight 08:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

solutions

I see you are a pro-active consultant in integrating rapid removal solutions into the global framework of collaborative encyclopaedia structures. yandman 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he seems to have put aside blue skies thinking, thought outside of the box and proactively provided a leveraged knowledge tranfer of that article. --Charlesknight 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

SOCK or MEAT puppet problem

Hi Guy, I have a problem with two POV pushing users (Huckleberry1 (talk · contribs) and HappyFun (talk · contribs)) who are white washing critcism from the Jim Ryun page and POV pushing on the Nancy Boyda. Judging by the addition of personal facts to the Ryan page i suspect it is a user with close ties to Ryun himself. Campaign staff or possibly even family? I have not escalated this to a vandalism warning yet. I am hovering on 3RR but since I consider these edits to be vandalism, especially the Ryun white wash, i might consider more aggressive talk page interaction. To date, i have not had a peep out of them. Care to give me a second opinion on this? Thanks for your time. David D. (Talk) 22:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd like to give this more time than I have available right now. I have gone with my first instinct, which is to block the two offenders and semiprotect to prevent further sockery. Please be very careful that the articles are WP:BLP compliant after the idiocy, I will trust your judgement on that. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I went through and copy edited out anything without a reliable source. We'll see what happens next. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzball MUCK

Hi, I just wanted to say it would've been nice if you had left a note on my talk page after proposing Fuzzball MUCK for deletion. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Misplaced Pages as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again for your kind comments, I will try to keep Misplaced Pages free of copyright violations as much as possible! ReyBrujo 20:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion request

Since you expressed an opinion on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, I would appreciate it if you could comment on WP:DDV, in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Misplaced Pages works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (Radiant) 08:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already made some changes there. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed, thanks for that. Does that imply you mostly agree with the page as written? (Radiant) 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of it, and most of the text. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr Spunky Toffee

Hi there,

I see that User:Mr Spunky Toffee has been blocked for being a sockpuppet. As I had adopted (WP:ADOPT) him - I wonder if you can give me a bit more info/background to put my mind at rest. Thanks Lethaniol 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This was a self-admitted sockpuppet of User:Brian G. Crawford who is indefinitely blocked by order of the Foundation's lawyer, Brad Patrick, for making death threats. He was on psychogenic medication at the time, but the community is not disposed to even ask for unblocking. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete UHSA article?

Hi, Is it possible to delete the http://en.wikipedia.org/University_of_Health_Sciences_Antigua article? Most of the info posted here is wrong and biased. As a current UHSA student, I humbly request it to be deleted. The article is being vandalized by current students (although I'm against that), so it has nothing meaningful to contribute to this encyclopedia. I started the article and never realized it would lead to long lasting edit wars. Thanks. DrGladwin 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are free to nominate it for deletion. There are instructions at WP:DP. I can't just nuke it because it does not, to my reading, meet any of our criteria for speedy deletion. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. DrGladwin 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I need your help again. It appears Leuko doesn't want to delete the article and left a message which I don't understand. The message reads, "rm prod. Instead of requesting deletion with a WP:COI, please provide

I'll do it. Please edit the AfD to include your reasons for deleting. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Guy. I really want to see the end of edit wars, which will never end as long as this article is here. DrGladwin 23:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If that were a valid reason for deleting, we'd have nuked George W. Bush long ago. The article, not the real thing (else I'd have been first with the red button). Guy (Help!) 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for you

If someone is using a User page just as a bulletin board for love notes back and forth (no actual article edits) what is the rule on that? Been watching this one a while. Don't know if it should just be ignored. Fan-1967 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a no-no, obviously. I would (and have) delete the user page (which has no meaningful history) and leave a message telling them why it's a problem (they seem not to be aware). If it carries on then lock the page. But actually I don't see any evidence that they were told not to do this. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure. It's not actual vandalism, after all, just an inappropriate use of server space. Fan-1967 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but there is a big difference between using Misplaced Pages for chat in and among edits, and using for playing kissy-kissy. Maybe I'm a bit harsh, who knows. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, seems that your messages and mine are having no effect at all. Not even noticing them, except to remove them. Fan-1967 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he has something else on his mind :-) Guy (Help!) 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ's tried a 24-hour block. We'll see what happens tomorrow. Fan-1967 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It then occured to me that a block won't really help so I protected the page. Actually it might make more sense to just protect and not to block. If anyone wants to remove the block on that rationale feel free. Note that they were also using User:Tinkerbell34 for the same thing. JoshuaZ 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Protect and no block was what I was going to do next, I'm just dashing out the door though. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the User page needs protecting, too. Same thing going on there. Clearly, he just doesn't care. Fan-1967 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Military brat

A few weeks ago an article that I had just started working on was nominated for deletion. At that time, I indicated that I had just started working on it. Since you were one of the more critical voices towards this article, I tought I'd seek out your feedback on the current state of the article. Could you go and take a look at it and let me know what you think? What areas still need to be improved? What do you like/don't like? I am still working on the article and know that it needs to be copy edited, so I'm primarily looking for tone/content advice. I'll watch your page for response, but you know I'm serious to come to one of the main critics for advice. Balloonman 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It has references, it appears reasonably neutral, it is a good article on this subject, but it is 100% US-centric. Well done for getting it right, though. Sorry for the faint praise, I'm sure it's better than that. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the US centricity is one of my criticisms of the topic too... unfortunately, ALL of the research that I've seen deals with American brats. I haven't found anything dealing with non-American brats... the only thing I've found is that American Brats often find that they have more incommon with brats of other countries than they do with American non-brats. Anyways, thanks for taking a look at it.Balloonman 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's partly down to the title - the term military brat is used, as far as I can tell, only in the US, whereas much of what it says about forces children applies to a much wider locus. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

British, Australians, and Canadians also use the term. Brits often use the acronymn "British Regiment Attached Travellers" for their brats, and Michael J Fox (a Canadian) refers to himself as a "Proud Military Brat." So I do know that other countries, where English is the primary language, use the term brat. I tried going back through the article and taking out some of the explicit language linking it to the US.Balloonman 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society "Calling a halt"

Can you explain your decision to call a halt a bit more? You mention a conflict of interest, puppets and apparent solicitation. But Chris Cole's conflict of interest was declared, the "puppet" (Kevin Landgon) has an easily verified existence IRL and what was the evidence for solicitation? Assuming that you do not wish to reconsider could you also send me a copy of the article at the point of deletion for further improvement. Thanks. --Michael C. Price 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this question - do you really believe that I am a puppet or in a conflict of interest? Moreover I think that a person who started an AfD discussion should not close it (separation of powers, yes).--Ioannes Pragensis 09:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)