Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:JzG Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:50, 21 December 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →MfD: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 09:52, 21 December 2006 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Calling editors cult victims: replyNext edit →
Line 495: Line 495:


Thanks for your response. Much appreciated. Can you point me to a reliable source that says NLP is a cult? It's government accredited field in my country. Several independent editors have identified falsified references about NLP being a cult in the wikipedia article. I hope you aren't using a wikipedia as a source for your opinion. On the second point. Let's be equal-minded. The incredible amount of NLP forks happened because of the editor that created 10 or more sockpuppets and refused to write anything in the parent article other than "NLP is a cult" in every possible grammatical permutation. A handful of independent editors forked the main article. Nonetheless, over half the editors involved in the Arbcom case are all that one single sockpuppet controller, who has quite possibly returned to run ammok again. He wasted many people's time over many months with his various useraccounts, personalities and theatrics, and was ultimately banned. I hope we can learn from history and this time include all consensus viewpoints in the parent article without dogmatism. I implore you to not take things at face value on the NLP article. Take care. ] 04:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your response. Much appreciated. Can you point me to a reliable source that says NLP is a cult? It's government accredited field in my country. Several independent editors have identified falsified references about NLP being a cult in the wikipedia article. I hope you aren't using a wikipedia as a source for your opinion. On the second point. Let's be equal-minded. The incredible amount of NLP forks happened because of the editor that created 10 or more sockpuppets and refused to write anything in the parent article other than "NLP is a cult" in every possible grammatical permutation. A handful of independent editors forked the main article. Nonetheless, over half the editors involved in the Arbcom case are all that one single sockpuppet controller, who has quite possibly returned to run ammok again. He wasted many people's time over many months with his various useraccounts, personalities and theatrics, and was ultimately banned. I hope we can learn from history and this time include all consensus viewpoints in the parent article without dogmatism. I implore you to not take things at face value on the NLP article. Take care. ] 04:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

: Lots of people identify elements of the cult about it. Talk space is not mainspace, so citations are not necessary. NLP is ''not'' a mainstream scientific discipline, it ''is'' a heavily promoted commercial field and one which is often used to prey on the vulnerable. The whole thing makes me profoundly uneasy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


== Wolf effect == == Wolf effect ==

Revision as of 09:52, 21 December 2006

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


Archive
Archives

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.

Read This First

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.


Speedy delete of The Adventures of Fatman

The article was speedily deleted for being non-notable, but if I'd ahd the chance I'd have added the 8 non-trivial articles (reviews) of the game that can easily be found at: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=adventures%20of%20fatman%20review

Please can you reinstate the page and let us have a proper notability debate?

  • I don't see how a website HAVING forums precludes it from being reliable. It doesn't mean that the articles are written by forum people. If you can let me see the deleted Fatman page (stick it on my user page if you like) then I can come up with a better version to get reinstated, notability references and all. --Amaccormack 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • -forums excludes a large number of forum posts, giving (in general) a better result in terms of actual unique hits. In general, it leaves the main site in the results. You don't need the deleted version, it was really not worth the effort of restoring. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, in your example it didn't leave the main site, and my supposedly flawed search had good articles for the first 8 hits, which you apparently didn't even check. But anyway, after your refusal, I went and got the article from google's cache and improved it so that it has references and meets the WP:SOFTWARE notability requirements. You may wish to review it at The Adventures of Fatman. --Amaccormack 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, glad you approve. I'm not sure that DIY games necessarily qualifies as a reliable source in terms of proving notability, etc. but I believe anyone interested in the game would want to know that it did get awards from what was a good source of adventure game reviews (they did try an play nearly EVERY amateur adventure game as they came out) until the main editor (not the adventure editor, Jozef Purdes who now carries on on his own blog and on gamesetwatch) gave up on the site and let its domain lapse, apparently. So DIYgames is now defunct, but it was respected in its day. --Amaccormack 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that the assertion of notability appears to rest primarily on the reputation of DIY Games, so it would be useful to know what that reputation is. Regardless of whether the subject is judged encyclopaedic or not, per WP:N, there is no possible doubt that this is a perfectly decent article and not a speedy candidate, so I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt :-) Guy (Help!) 11:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Input

In regards to the comment you made on this AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kim_(timeline_of_death). Could you also stop by and give your opinion here Talk:James_Kim#Timeline.3F as we're having a consensus issue.--Crossmr 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus issue wasn't about 3RR, it was about the inclusion of the timeline in the article. Since you'd commented on the AfD as to its encyclopedic value I thought perhaps you could comment on its value within the main article.--Crossmr 21:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, but I couldn't resist. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind your comment on 3RR, but the Timeline is the bigger issue on the article at the moment. Since you'd expressed an opinion elsewhere on it, I was hoping you could help further the discussion there. We need to form a much clearer consensus on whether or not its appropriate to the article.--Crossmr 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on resolving this? One of the editors just attempted to extend the timeline to over twice its existing size. It was not benefiting the article before that change.--Crossmr 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking with one of the editors who was for the timeline I went ahead last night and made an integration of the timeline with the narrative in a manner that allows for quickly see on what day things occurred. When you get a chance I would appreciate your input.--Crossmr 21:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

MfD alert

Once again, one of your pages is up for nomination at MfD. Not sure whether anyone is bothering to notify creators of such things so I'm letting you know. Newyorkbrad 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Docued

Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Docued. (Perhaps you saw the note on WP:ANI?) I reviewed the user's contributions. The articles have lists of films that link to the documentary film company that employs the editor. I've prodded many of the articles, however, the degree of spamming causes me to ponder whether they meet speedy criteria for spamming. If not, do you think the external links to the company should be deleted? (A lot of work for prodded articles.) — ERcheck (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's more than likely that they do. One or two may be valid subjects, but we can probably wait for a neutral third party to create them. However, some good-faith contributors seem to believe that these may contribute to the coverage of something. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a note of caution: Not all of the links to DER were added by Docued. I probably added one or two myself at some point. While DER certainly sells and distributes films, as a nonprofit consortium of academics and filmmakers, they also provide film clips, scholarly papers and proceedings of meetings that would be useful to a reader seeking further info on visual anthropology. I don't know how strongly to interpret the rules against commercial links in this case, but some of those DER links go directly to non-catalog pages (such as the tribute to Jean Rouch). The Ax Fight page cited a PDF of a paper written by anthropologists that was hosted on the DER site (and written specifically for them, I believe). But if I'm entirely off-base here, let me know.--Media anthro 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Gardner: Gardner is definitely notable and very influential within anthropology. This article was in existence before Docued came along, so I didn't think to list it in response to your question. (two other articles to which Docued contributed, Jay Ruby and Jean Rouch, are also subjects notable in terms of filmmaking and publishing.))--Media anthro 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

The page is still a source to have increase google hit on ali sina. Why not that page is deleted? Even deletion review comes out as delete now. It should not be redirected to anywhere but deleted. --- ALM 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixity of Species

Please go back, read the article that was deleted. Make a legitimate opinion on whether it should be deleted. Don't be ignorant on topics before you voice you opinions...that is the worst thing an admin can do.

You wrote:

Endorse deletion, new articles with "much better titles" are not a way of fixing consensus to delete. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your previous opinion:

Endorse valid process, and with only 84 Googles I see no pressing reason to spend too much time agonising further over this. If someone wants to make it a redirect to creationism or something then that should be uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that a "much better title" is exactly what is needed. If 84 ghits is not good enough then 14,700 ghits and 648 google books should be. Your reason for deletion is now completely negated. Please go back, read the article and come up with a legitimate reason why it should be delete other than "the other people say so" and if you can't find one...change you "endorsement". Pbarnes 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DMWD

I'd been working from a copy from the local library. I'll have to check it back out again (could do with writing up a page on the Harvey Projector, for one!) and maybe have a hunt around for Nevil Shute's biography, which might have details on one or two of the projects. A category sounds like a good idea, though I'm not sure how populated it'd get – there seems to be something of a dearth of information about most of the projects outside of Pawle's book. GeeJo ⁄(c) • 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have quite a few of them, with Goodeve, Shute, Hedgehog, Squid, Panjandrum, Hajile and the like plus elements of Mulberry. A navbox would probably be better, though. I have Slide Rule and Pawle in boxes somewhere. I also have biographies of Barnes Wallis and Sidney Cotton, and a history of Handley Page I will work through when I get a round tuit :-) Guy (Help!) 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

Hi! Though they have not been accredited in the past, I just looked them up and they have a listing on the California regulatory site. Please take a look at the talk page. The recent edit you made may be in error regarding "any accrediting body." Thanks! Jokestress 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi. You might want to check your e-mail. --A. B. 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll love this one.

Check out the first paragraph on User:Jonezy 10. -- Fan-1967 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My post on another talk page

Hi. You may be able to help me with my request at post -- Jreferee 01:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And mine please at Talk:Enviga#Suggest_we_delete_and_reorganise  :) Abtract 11:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

I'm puzzled: you've reintroduced the assertion that the institution is unaccredited without citing sources, even though you cited something from the New York Times in your post to the mailing list? --bainer (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • We can cite the NYT piece if necessary, but I think it much more likely that PWU will call the office if there is any link made whatsoever to content critical of the place; it could be sourced to CHEA though. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi JzG/Guy- I wrote an expansion of the Pacific Western University article that presently is on my computer. The information was based on reputable sources. The structure of my expanision is based on Wikiproject School. I reviewed all postings on the topic and believe my changes address all concerns. I would like to add my changes to the article. Please let me know how I can go about doing this. Thanks. -- Jreferee 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I worked up a new version, which is based on verifiable data. I expanded the article from 237 words to 2,486 words (1,427 characters to 20,408 characters). My revision includes many of the existing lines but adds a significant amount of new material based on Wikiproject School guidelines. Posting my revisions on the talk page will overwhelm the talk page. My suggestion is to post my revisions at Pacific Western University and let others revise it as they see fit. Please let me know whether we can proceed this way. Thanks. -- Jreferee 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

Hello JzG,

The group you and another have tagged at http://en.wikipedia.org/AUFORN - Is in fact a private commercial company that sells magazines & books, see my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Lucasbfr#Could_be_a_vandal_at_work.3F

It looks as if Admin User_talk:Lucasbfr is not avaliable at this time to help, as the same ISP posted up links to the company and its owners etc at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Australian_ufology&action=history

It look as if "Mantom555" is from the same company, all the inputs have the owners names all over them?

Thankyou & Best Regards TimMU 14:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to do the honors?

Remember WP:ANI#Admin_plays_detective...what_next.3F? Well I've received two barnstars and the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award, but no one has gone ahead and banned User:AWilliamson. I've only banned one of his socks - creatively named User:Durova. - because it was an impersonation account. Since I've been involved in disputes with him, it would be more appropriate if someone else actually banned the main account. You were among the first to respond to the thread: would you like to? The only dissenting voice has been EReference, which Akhilleus and I both suspect is a sock. Durova 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Guy--in addition to the accounts you've already blocked, you may wish to take a look at the list of suspected socks at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets. Also, as Durova just mentioned, EReference warrants scrutiny--the discussion that we had on his user talk page is particularly interesting. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. Durova 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


I want to bring up YTMND with you one last time

Sorry to do this, but I just want to straighten things out. I want to know exactly why we blacklisted YTMNDs. Frankly, Misplaced Pages is the only place in the entire world where the official position is anti-YTMND. If it's because of copyvios, why would news articles link to them? Also, this could have the wrong effect, and as you know, a sizeable number of Wikipedians think of all YTMNDers as vandals (which is most certainly not true). You yourself said the following on the spam blacklist:

  • (a) add YTMNDs to mainstream articles,
    • While this is true, in some cases such as the Picard and Finding Forrester articles, it should be okay. While in most cases it's wrong, we have to take into account the whole picture.
  • (b) create and link to YTMNDs which violate copyright
    • Frankly, this saying is a Misplaced Pages is supposed to hate YTMND because it violates copyright. I should probably mention that a lot of the sites are parodies and as such fall into Fair Use. Also, YTMNDers are much stricter than Wikipedians when it comes to source citation, believe it or not.
  • (c) abuse Misplaced Pages for viral marketing
    • Is there an example of this?
  • (d) create and link to attacks on Wikipedians.
    • I have not once seen a single site focused on a single Wikipedian. Most of the Wiki-related YTMNDs are vandalism sites which I am very admant about stopping.

Frankly, we don't want to be seen like this as a group. Look at some of my work on Misplaced Pages, and some work of some other YTMNDers on Misplaced Pages, and you'll see we're not all vandals. I really hate to bring this up with you, but I really appreciate you're taking time to think back on this. I have the same problems you do with many YTMNDers, but I just want to make sure you're not mad at the entire community. Sir Crazyswordsman 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There are actually five reasons they were blacklisted.
  • They were repeatedly added to mainstream articles despite often having no actual relevance (whatever YTMNDers might think , the world in general does not care how many indifferent Flash animations are made about a subject). Sometimes this might rise above the level of profoundly irrelevant, but usually it did not. External links are there to support the content as additional sources, further reading and to link to sites which give more detail than would be appropriate in a Misplaced Pages article. YTMNDs almost without exception do none of the above.
  • They are generally rich media requiring an external player, per WP:EL links to avoid.
  • Offsite attacks, which are a zero-tolerance thing.
  • The viral marketing element (see "safety not guaranteed", scientology, numerous others).
  • A large number of them contain copyright violations - virtually all the soundtracks and most of the pictures are unfree with no stated copyright waiver from the originator (this is the clincher); this absolutely does not come under the "fair use parody" header, since it is not the soundtrack which is being parodied.
So, no element of malice, but three things which violate strong consensus on links (copyright, attacks and rich media) plus two things which are merely tedious (and an abuse of the project). The real question is, what YTMND links are proposed which would actually genuinely add to the project per WP:EL? Apart from the occasional "OMG LOL" junk I have seen nothing which would actually enhance an article. Even the scientology ones are unhelpful in that they have unclear copyright and no provable authority. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No comment/query

I have nothing to say, except that I have had interactions with the author before (pleasant ones) and therefore do not wish to opine, but see what you think about Theo Clarke (the article, not the user). Geogre 13:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, please note that my only contribution to that article was the addition of the speedy template.—Theo (Talk) 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE)

I was directed from WP:AN to you for assistance with an issue involving Pacific Western University. A user has apparently created a series of categories under Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) to give Pacific Western University the appearance of accreditation. The category tree has been nominated for deletion, and the debate surrounding the Pacific Western University article now continues at WP:CFD. Could you provide moderation or oversight over the debate (or at least comment on the category) at WP:CFD? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 18:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PWU figures

Did you just unilaterally erase the bios and article histories of key Pacific Western University personnel Ronald Detrick and Steven Warfield? I just spent the better part of a day writing those to support the PWU article. Jokestress 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. You wrote them to support the PWU article. We do have one or two articles on the people who run unaccredited schools, where they are independently notable, but these peopel were not and the articles contained no assertion of notability (WP:CSD criterion A7). If you look through my history you'll see that I take a very dim view of attempts to "Gastroturf" unaccredited schools. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Then please send the text you unilaterally deleted without discussion, as I did it all in Misplaced Pages directly (which I won't do again if this kind of admin action is the way things are headed here). Some of that information should probably considered for the PWU article (Warfield's arrest, etc.). FYI, I am a Quackwatch affiliate and agree entirely with you about diploma mills, but your unilateral actions are highly troubling and smack of zealotry and disregard for process. Your implication that my good faith effort to write articles by clicking on red links (which is what I do primarily, having started 600 or 700 biographies) is "gastroturfing" is frankly insulting. Jokestress 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to calm down a bit, please. I might be a bit of a rouge admin, but when I act boldly I do so because I believe it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Warfield's arrest seems to me to be a WP:LIVING violation, for example, since it's just about the only thing about him which has ever been in the press, and it seems he was never charged or convicted - I don't see what part of WP:BIO he is asserted to meet and I have no desire to start a puppet theatre on AfD, which is what has happened in the past with similar scenarios. I have no reason to doubt your good faith (I did check your contribution history, you are not one of the editors who concerns me especially here) but I do have some reason to doubt the good faith of those who insert redlinks to "key figures" in the history of an institution which has received virtually no coverage other than allegations of being a diploma mill; we also have the WP:OFFICE problem, someone out there is throwing their weight around and we have to be very, very careful. Gastroturfing is definitely going on, as witness the number of articles where PWU degrees have recently been added without any note that they are unaccredited. As you probably know, Misplaced Pages is the number one most attractive target these days for people promoting dodgy businesses, fringe theories and other sorts of things we don't want. So. If you really want the text you are welcome to it, of course, and I'm sorry for the wasted effort, but I am very concerned that we are being abused by supporters of what looks on the face of it very much like a diploma mill - the awarding of "life experience" degrees and fixed-price degrees (both done by PWU) is generally considered diagnostic. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please email me the deleted text and I'll get it to an offsite resource like credentialwatch. Thanks. Jokestress 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. On the whole I think that is a much better idea. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Doris Brougham

Did you unilaterally delete this article? Jokestress 08:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you removed this and Srully Blotnick without discussion. Please reinstate both and send them through AfD or I am going to report these incidents. I also suggest you stop unilaterally deleting biographies with citations and disputed notability and send them through AfD instead. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, not fiat. Thanks. Jokestress 08:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Same applies. Articles on individuals with no evident claim to notability can be deleted under WP:CSD criterion A7. deletion review is available, as always. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Reported. I guarantee these will be overturned, and I reiterate that AfD is better in instances like these. Jokestress 09:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You guarantee, eh? Well maybe you're right, but maybe you're not. You've been around the project longer than I have, I think, but I have spent a long time around AfD and DRV because admins do that shit. In the end I don't think this is personal, so let's wait and see. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re to comment on my talk page

Hi. I see your point, but I am quite surprised that this had caused controversy to begin with. The other editor has made a habit of making many minuscule changes to articles - following them requires a lot of attention, and, since the wording replaced is unlikely to have been "wrong" (as opposed to "not the best possible"), that effort was not worth it (just because he did not want to use diacritics for some peculiar reason). With or without diacritics, some of the minor edits were simply redundant.

This was not about ownership of the text. I happen to have created much of the text, but have certainly allowed similar edits on it, and will welcome much more substantial changes if it should be the case. This was, IMO, a mere decrease in quality, and rather impolite in the assumption that I or other editors were supposed to re-add the diacritics. Dahn 11:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was just letting you know and assuming good faith on all sides. A slightly longer or more conciliatory edit summary should not be a big deal, and I left a note on his Talk saying that my reading of the summary was different to his, and that it was a reasonable action (for stated reasons). I really don't think it is a big deal, but I do know (from previous interactions) that this user - and these subjects - are a bit touchy. Given your long editing history I don't think you'll have any trouble fixing the problem, and if you do it'll probably be the other party's fault not yours. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Dahn 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The real Leona Lewis

Just a note: on December 16, 2006, the genuine Leona Lewis won the X-Factor competition, and her page is no longer a redirect but a full (and legitimate) article; Leona Louise Lewis and Leona-Louise Lewis redirect to it. The User:Leonalewis you blocked was very probably not the same person, but borrowing the real singer's name. – SAJordan contribs 21:39, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).

A Matter for Discussion

I have a matter that has been bugging me for some time now, and A Man in Black recommended you after he and I have come to blows with this.

The particular matter concerns various Yu-Gi-Oh! and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX [ages. I understand entirely Misplaced Pages's policy on sourcing material. However, AMIB says direct observations and fansites are not allowed. I agree on the latter, but the former confuses me. Simply put, the official Yu-Gi-Oh! page does not supply much information about anything, and is often outdated. If only the official page were to be used for a source, then several pages would either be deleted or have vast amount of content removed.

I think that, at least for the case of Yu-Gi-Oh!, and probably other shows where this is a problem, direct observation of the episodes is the only reliable source. Now, this issue started with AMIB deleting an unsourced article, but I can supply an on-line copy of the episode in which the information disclosed in the article is given, and by all accounts I do not understand why such a video is not a viable source. I just feel that, if we can supply any official material to back-up the information, it should count as a source, and in the case of television shows, wouldn't the episodes themselves be excellent sources? In this particular show, they're the only trustworthy source that isn't a fansite.

What I'm asking is why direct observation is not allowed. In the case of Yu-Gi-Oh!, it's more or less the only reliable source we have that isn't a fansite. I think the rulings on direct observation of television shows should have exceptions for shows where the official sites offer little to no useful information.

Drake Clawfang 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that he and I fundamentally agree here. Direct observation may be acceptable for an uncontroversial fact, and we can cite an episode as a source provided we give sufficient detail for verification (episode foo, 8min 7s in), but we absolutely may not draw inferences from observation - thus, if character foo is seen in red in five episodes and not seen at all in any others we may say that foo appears only in red, but we may not say that red is their favourite colour, or speculate on whether other colours are possible, and if there are no sources other than observation, then inclusion is highly questionable. What is the precise piece of information you want to include in this instance? Guy (Help!) 08:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well there is a character in GX that uses two main monsters: Cyber Dragon and Cyberdark Dragon, and the two are based off of Chinese mythos and the yin-yang, with the Cyber Dragons being the yang and the Cyberdark being the yin. His master who gives him the cards uses a balanced deck that is neither, is a balance between the two forces. AMIB deleted ths article for not having a source. As mentioned, I can provide an on-line video (unfortunately, it will be Japanese, the dubbed anime omits these details) and I can easily provide the time in which he describes the yin-yang properties of the card. If I do this, can I recreate the page? Drake Clawfang 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Without a reliable secondary source to back at least the core substance of the article I'm afraid you're onto a loser. However accurate, it will be denounced as fancruft - if it is not documented even by the Yu-Gi-Oh! sites, it's almost certainly below the level of notability we expect, and will most likely be dismissed as unverifiable as well with only one source, and that primary. Primary notability criterion: has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That's because WP:NOT a directory as well as WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and ensuring WP:NPOV. An article which relies entirely on watching the episodes is always going to be a problem. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. In that case, as mentioned the sites are horrible for info, so that's it, the only other source I know of that has the information is Janime. Thanks anyway. Drake Clawfang 17:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP

Hello again Guy. Your assessment of the NLP article seems to have served as a useful warning to keep the basic facts clear. Though they did fight your assessment (contrary to even the most obvious facts) I am sure your message got through to them on some level. They haven’t tried to fix the problem and they’re still deleting the basics from the opening . But I’m certainly reassured that admin has not forsaken the NLP article and Misplaced Pages authorities are helpful. I found it very odd that those NLP editors who claim to have been around so much longer than myself have shown such a “concerted” misunderstanding of basic NPOV policies. They seem to be very unlike other long term editors I have come across. I did doubt myself for a while but another investigation of the policy pages shows that the NPOV policy is clear on this matter. There is quite a lot of work for me to do on the journalism Misplaced Pages articles and I’ll not have much time to explain the obvious on the NLP article. But I guess it should be easier now to maintain the most basic NLP facts and report it straight according to NPOV policies. Always open to suggestion. Thanks. AlanBarnet 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could expand on what you meant by promotional or if you have any proof from any significant peer reviewed literature to say that "NLP is a cult". I agree that the article could be more descriptive. At the same time the mentors said that the article needed to be more accessible. So there is a trade off here. It can be description with formal tones or simpler and easily understood. That includes fairly representing the views of critics, as well as the counter-claims in a way that does not imply that one is more correct than the other. Even if you think NLP is pseudoscience, it still must be presented as plausible. Upon checking the facts and references we found that many were misrepresented. We are still in the process of summarising the reception of NLP, including the research to date on NLP from various fields. Unfortunately the article prior to our revisions exaggerate (even misrepresented) the position of some of the more extreme skeptics while downplaying the more reasonable definitions from authors more supportive of NLP. It is not an easy topic to describe because there are so many different views on the topic. I'll attempt to make my contributions more objective and critical. Thanks for your feedback. We probably request another peer-review soon so we can get feedback on how to get closer to feature article (or WP 1.0) candidate. --Comaze 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would stop editing these articles despite your known conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the conflict of interest. I have read it and agree with it in principle. It does suggest that editors should dislose their interests where there may be a conflict. My interests are written on my talk page. And aim to base my edits on reliable, verifiable literature. The current editors all know that I am a student of NLP. I am also a student of cognitive science and computer science with an interest in psychology. That does not stop me from editing on the cognitive science or computer science articles. Nonetheless, I will hold myself to a higher standard for verifiability, and reliability of evidence. While being an student in the field is not required, it can help. I intend help write a balanced article by collaborating with the other editors who have different views to arrive at a balanced article. Keep in mind that I have gone through mediation, arbitration and mentorship and have learnt alot about wikipedia policy. I have read the conflict of interest article and will be more critical in my writing on those articles especially where there may be a conflict. --Comaze 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I notice you invited the arbcom to take a look at this... . Where is the best place for me to explain my side of the story? --Comaze 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not productive?

Can you be more specific? What is not productive, or helpful? Do I delete articles, or somebody's coments? Do i call the whole one nation "nationalistic"? Do i say that for to edit the encyclopedia one doesn't need knowledge? Please be more specific.
194.152.217.129 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole comment came across as, to put it charitably, a rehashing of past grievances. Try making some concrete suggestions as to how the article could be improved to improve its neutrality, preferably with good, solid, reliable sources (newspapers, books etc.) to back you. We can cover controversial topics pretty well when both sides agree to document rather than assert their differences. Start small, with some specific changes that can be debated, and let the admins know if the response is less than civil. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. So once again: Pax sais that the Croatian nation is "nationalistic". Now, i am not a primitive man to let me be insulted by anything someone throws on me, but that is hardly up to civilised manner standards. Doesn't he deserve at least warning for something like that. That can also make an insight in his neutrality concerning the article. Second, he says there that one doesn't need a knowledge to make an encyclopedia, only guts. That can make a valuable insight in his intentions editing wikipedia. that makes our discussion to important to be deleted just like that.
What consernes the article itself, i am a Narentine and i can tell you that there is no evidence in the history that narentines ever considered themselfs as Serbs. ...but you don't have to care about that, just let me have a fer terms for the discussion. If he doesn't have the arguments, you don't have to be his atorny.

Than again, he continues to reffere to me as to some Afrika guy, which I'm not.
194.152.217.129 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All nations are nationalistic, though, aren't they? That's rather the point. Anyway, if you can state calmly and without reference to personalities exactly what it is you want to change, to what, and with what authority (cited external reliable sources), you will have much less trouble. Keep calm and all should eventually be well. It may take time, but patience and good sourcing should always win on Misplaced Pages, even if it means documenting two competing claims and their basis. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, i appreciate your good will, but I think you will have to try harder as well. First of all, a nation can not be a nationalistic since (quote) "Nationalism is an ideology that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life...", and a nation can not have an ideology, just an individual. i never thought by being a Croat, I'm something special, an that makes me NOT nationalistic. You could see that I criticized a Croatian nationalistic "historians" in my discussion there. But if someone tries to cancel my right for calling myself a Croat - that just won't do. Maybe you don't know, but recently Croats had the war straggling for this right, and the statements made without any proof like this one in the Pagania article were the catalyst for the Serbian aggression on my country. That cost too many lives and therefor makes it difficult to stay calm discussing it. but i don't think I crossed the line by being vulgar, or insulting. You can see that Pax even tried to twist my words against me, trying to make me look bad. Maybe you should have a word or two with him. I don't want to make an editing war, but please, put back my comments on the board where they belong.
194.152.217.129 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, I've said what you need to do to fix the problem: raise, on the Talk page, with good quality cited sources, the changes or additions you want made, avoiding personalities and sticking to the article; just take this at face value, yes? It doesn't take a genius to realise that the article has been the subject of some very heated debate in the past and while I'm happy to spend the rest of the day chewing the fat about it here, in the end if you want something fixed you're going to have to go to the article and get it fixed, one way or another, and the way that is most likely to work is to cite good sources, be specific and keep away from the personalities of other editors. I thought that was pretty uncontroversial. Do you have a problem with this? I have no intention of getting drawn in to the debate, but I can help you with the dispute resolution process if you have a problem with another editor. I already have one ethnic feud on my watchlist and I'd rather not have another right now, content disputes can be settled by reasoned debate, and those who refuse to engage in reasoned debate can be blocked or banned from the topic. It's an imperfect system and it takes time to produce the right result, but it's what we've got and for the most part it works well enough. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you have good intentions, but the fact that the author of the article doesn't have the proof for he's statements should be enough to change these statements in the article. There is simply no evidence of Narentines considering themselves Serbs back in tenth century. There is no evidence whatsoever about their exact ethnic origin, and all the author can say about it is a pure speculation. it is a subject that's been cause of the disputes for a very long time. The author himself acknowledges that he doesn't need knowledge to write the article!That should be enough to delete it from the encyclopedia, cause encyclopedia is about FACTS, isn't it. Now, I know I can not persuade author to change this in his article through discussion, but what are my options then? And why is he keep on calling me Afrika? Who gives him the right to put a tag on me? What can I do about that?
Next, you can not delete my comments only cause you don't like them. What is it that I said that deserved this treatment? And again: shouldn't you warn Pax for putting the tag on the whole nation? That's what I call crossing the line.
PS When you say you don't want to be involved - it's too late. By deleting my contributions you've already done that. If you want back the fer way is to put it back on the board. 89.172.22.82 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources. Specifics. At the article. OK? This is just arm-waving and really not productive, you're not going to enlist me to either side of the dispute, trying to do so may even be counter-productive. Seriously, you need to raise your specific problems with reliable sources and what you want changed, or you are going to get nowhere. If the other editor(s) refuse to engage in civil debate, then you go to dispute resolution. Any editor who resists addition of content whose only source is the International Journal of Because I Said So is doing right - so if you want to get credibility in the dispute, you go with good sources, and then you have legitimate grounds for complaint if the other editor(s) are obdurate. If you need help achieving this, there is always the association of members' advocates but honestly I don't see why you should not just go back with good sources and start from there.
As to why the other editor calls you Afrika, this User:194.152.217.129 explains all. If you are User:Afrika paprika then you are wasting both our time. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Again i repeat: the author doesn't have ANY sources for his claims! Serious historians can not find the agreement on this matter. That's why it was always the weapon for the Serbian nationalists. I explained that already and doesn't want to repeat myself. This is a serious thing. And why are you saying that I'm trying to make you take sides? How can I? And you didn't tell me why have you removed my contributions. Were the obscene? Incorrect?
Once again I repeat: I am not Afrika Paprika! Not all people who disagrees with Pax Equilibrium is Afrika Paprika. 89.172.17.226 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You have made no attempt to deny that you and the other IP are one, and we have CheckUser evidence that the other IP is Afrika paprika. Plus it passes the duck test. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW Do you have the right to delete my contributions if you don't like them. they are not insultive at all and just stating the facts.

Yes. But do remember that I have never even seen that article before and have no idea what it's about - my dislike of your comments is purely on the grounds stated. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 18 December 2006

Kendrick Scott

It was suggested that I come to you for assistance about the deletion of this article. Basically, I think someone may have deleted this article without realizing that it had changed subjects since it was last AFDed (by myself). The latest incarnation of the article is about a jazz drummer, and he looked like he had at least mediocre claims to notability, enough that I had looked at the article and decided not to prod it. Could you take a look and see if you can retrieve it? --Brianyoumans 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It was also largely the work of User:Kadscott, whihc is not a good sign... Feel free to create a new article citing independent sources (this had none) - if you need the deleted content you can have it but it's not up to much and you'd likely be better starting afresh from sources. It's certainly plausible that the fellow is notable. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hot Air

I don't see why this page was unilaterally deleted.
If you felt that it didn't meet the guidelines for Misplaced Pages you should have listed it for an afd.
It was not advertising-blatant or otherwise-and it was not spam.
There should have been some debate over whether this article met the standards of Misplaced Pages, since there seems to be some disagreement on that point. Ruthfulbarbarity 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Deletion review is that way → Guy (Help!) 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that if one of your articles was up for deletion the person was informed on their talk page. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please?

Soviet Ritzakstahn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Namis Noman

Thanks for the speedydel of Namis Noman, I was unsure as to whether it fitted the criteria for speedy deletion :) --Veesicle 20:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika & me

I want to clear some things. First of all, I never said that the Croatian nation is nationalistic; Second of all, I do stand by the fact that I claim that a wide knowledge is not necessary to edit Misplaced Pages - after all; it's not about truth, but verifiability instead; and I was also referring to the liberal attitude of this 💕. And finally, this meat army of anons (and other meatpuppets) has been established even through checkuser that they're all sockpuppets of this community-banned very disruptive troll. I pushed for the Checkuser precisely because Afrika keeps constantly returning and denying that he's himself - even though many (most) have said that a user-check is not necessary because 1) it's pretty obvious that they're Afrika's socks and 2) the user has and keeps self-identifying as none other than User:Afrika paprika himself. I am deleting his edits, because they're edits of a banned user - and as per WP:BLOCK, all edits of indef-blocked users're to be reverted. As for him being a Narentine... well, trouble is that those Pagans have been extinct for centuries by now, and most of their descendants live in today's eastern and south Serbia (allegedly), so I do not understand the myth that Afrika paprika has just presented to You. I apologize if I seem to extreme, but this User has threatened me that (literally) Jesus will f*** my mother, called me a "SlavoSerbian shit" and said that I suck Seselj's d**k and called me a "Chetnik". Truly Yours, --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about Afrika's Croatian nationalism, but these (and many other) comments are indeed proofs of xenophobia. I, as the writer of the Pagania article, have to state that the article has sources (it's sourced), so there is proof, - while the "other side" sharing opposing arguments at the talk page has not once presented any source whatsoever. Also, the very term of "Serbian aggression to Croatia" referring to the early 1990s warring in the Republic of Croatia (ex Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is inherently POV. It's an opinion to many, but many it was an example of Croatian aggression (and the current Misplaced Pages article reflects the middle, which is NPOV). For example, it was mostly a "Croatian aggression" and nothing else to over half a million victims of the war (then, referring to "Serbian aggression" is (insulting to all those) something like negating the tortures of all those thousands and others who had suffered in most probably one of the most stupidest wars ever fought on the face of the earth). --PaxEquilibrium 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I know exactly where you're at there. I stand by what I said to the anon above, though - if he were to bring sources and specifics, and steer clear of personalities, he'd stand some chance. Arm-waving and ad-hominem? Forget it. As to the threats, Paprika can stay banned. On the face of it, if he hasn't learned by now he's not going to, and any more crapw ill just get the IP blocked. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As for proofs - I already said that the whole article is sourced (and AFAIC no source for what Afrika claims), as for back in the tenth century - there oh-so-much is (one dating from ca. 950. I quoted it). It hasn't been disputed at all until Afrika showed up :). The Misplaced Pages (although treading with FACTS), is verifiability, not truth. The User did not discuss, but resorted to edit-warring and other various disruptions which earned him a community block. I have the right to put the tag as the Misplaced Pages deals with sockpuppetry - I repeat, You are observing a whole armada of (both self-confirmed and checkuser-ed) meat-puppets of Afrika paprika. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

These are the authors proofs:

Ćorović, Vladimir (2005). ИЛУСТРОВАНА ИСТОРИЈА СРБА, Book I, Politika. Ćorović, Vladimir (2005). ИЛУСТРОВАНА ИСТОРИЈА СРБА, Book II, Politika. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, ca. 950, De Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, trans. R.J.H. Jenkins, rev. ed., Washington, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Pagania"
Now, on the first two, I won't waste words. As far as the third "proof" goes I repeat: serious historians are still doubting it as a reliable source. And if you want to play like that, the emperor himself is saying that Coats came to Balkan first, chasing out the Avars, setling there. Then came Serbs... But, for the author, the first part and "Red Croatia" is a mith! And he claims that Serbs settled the previously uninhabited parts of peninsula. Fruitfull plains of Neretva river were uninhabited! Come on! And the fact that there was Narona is also a mith?
Once again: Stop calling me Paprika, or maybe I should think of a name for you? 89.172.17.226 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So: two unreliable, one doubtfully reliable, historians generally disputing it. Must try harder :-) Guy (Help!) 21:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Me or him? :)) Three unreliable sources are enough to make it NOT a fact I guess, and therefore not fit for the encyclopedia.89.172.17.226 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You want a change made, it's up to you to support it from reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will try to dig into history book to prove to you that I am a Croat :)))

No, seriously, shouldn't it be the other way arround? Shouldn't author have the proof of what he's writing about?89.172.17.226 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahm, no - I have sources, you do not, Afrika. I don't understand - You're a Pagan? What did You do 800 years ago, invent a time machine and came here, to the present? Wow, that's amazing. :D Oh, and I'm a Babylonian. --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There's one more source he forgot to mention (but I guess it'll also be unreliable to Afrika): "Narentines - the forgotten Serb tribe". And this "Red Croatia" has absolutely no relevance to Doclea. I'm not claiming anything, I'm just posting sources. What on earth "peninsula"? --PaxEquilibrium 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This "source" is no source at all. The author of this article doesn't make any proof of the Serbian origin of Narentines. He behaves just like the author of Pagania article.
I sad hundred times before: stop calling me names. Try to be decent. 89.172.17.226 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh, for Christ's sake it's a source to the article, and not to just one bit of it. I'm not calling You names; I'm calling You by Your name - Afrika paprika. --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If the article's unsourced it could be tagged as such, but I don't think it is. The changes AP wants? I see no evidence at all to support them. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not unsourced - every bit of it is sourced. --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about every bit; only the statement that Narentines were Serbs. That was never proved. In all serious history books stays that Narentines were the Slavic tribe!
Once again I say: the statements in encyclopedia should be proved. It's up to author to prove it, not up to somebody else to prove the opposite. An example:
If I wrote in Wiki that aliens visited the Earth, and that the prove for that are the pyramids and drawings on the hill, you can not prove that aliens never did visit the Earth, all you can say that my proofs are not strong enough.
Another question: It is obvious that I can never convince the author to put things right and to write "a Slavic tribe"; who should I convince to correct things in Wiki's article without starting the edit war?194.152.217.129 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well? How does it work? Who's the authority to decide wether the article needs acorrection?194.152.217.129 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but who's to decide? Who will look at my arguments and try to understand them?194.152.217.129 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
People. Step one: state the specific requested changes and cite the reliable sources on which they are based. Make no mention whasoever of personalities. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Step one done. What's the step two?
194.152.217.129 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to bother you, but what's the next step I should take?
89.172.26.143 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocausality

Hi Guy, as per your recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, much better. Now I understand it, anyway :-) Guy (Help!) 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff on Anal stretching

It's in DRV, and the author is complaining about heavy handed admins deleting for G4. Could you provide a copy of the originally deleted version, and the most recent one, so we can compare? This is what you get for Category:Misplaced Pages administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, by the way. -Amarkov edits 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Amarkov edits 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A completely unambiguous G4, the first para was word for word the same and most of the rest was as well. I'm all for assuming good faith, but he's taken the piss. Game over, as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
* Nonsense. I attempted to recreate the article, making sure it was not in any was a how to guide (even see the talk page for the article!) and before I could finish ZAP, it was deleted. What's worse is that the article is now locked from recreation. Next time I'll be sure to put a template saying "Hey heavy-handed admins, this article is being amended so as to comply with AfD." (See template below!)
Now say it with me
"Amendments before deletion!"' Rfwoolf 08:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Now say it with me: don't recreate substantially identical copies of articles deleted through process, and when people assume good faith, don't take the piss. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I probably should have assumed that, but my last experience with something like this doesn't help me assume without evidence. -Amarkov edits 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Trust, but verify" :-) Guy (Help!) 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of article "GrodsCorp"

Hi,

You claimed no assertion of notoriety. At the bottom of the post was a link to the site in the National Library of Australia Pandora Archive. Websites are selected for inclusion in the archive "based on their significance and their research value in the long term" and the Pandora Archive is "committed to preserving electronic publications of lasting cultural value." Is this not a reasonable level of notoriety?

Cheers, Scott

GrodsCorp 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

anonymous block

"Harrassment" is not listed as a valid reason for blocking, nor is blocking without warning nor dicussion.

66.252.244.140 00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood links RFAR Statement Thanks

You sure are a busy guy, Guy. Thanks for weighing in on the Starwood RFAR and, of course, on your excellent taste in who to agree with. It's been a rather wearying situation. At some points I've doubted my actions and asked myself "Am I really correct in how I see the issues and actions here?" When more experienced Wikipedians (such as yourself) observe the same things when they look at the situation, I find it very encouraging. I'm still not sure the RFAR was the correct path to go but we'll see how that turns out. Mediation appears to be at an end with CheNuevara's summary. I'm wryly amused that one principle in the matter opted to close his account rather than face arbitration. I'm not entirely sure it was the best decision on my part to edit under my real name rather than a handle. However, I'm a firm believer in accountability for my actions on Misplaced Pages.

Well, look at me ramble at you. Sorry. I really only wanted to express my appreciation for your words in the matter. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No problem. It can be hard to remain objective when faced with determined promotion of a fringe view, but I think you maintained your equilibrium with that summary. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Preventing recreation of Anal Stretching article

I see you have gone and unilaterally locked the Anal stretching article and preventing its recreation -- assumably from me. Are you now saying that no such article ever should exist on Misplaced Pages? How is one supposed to recreate it now?
Furthermore, see the deletion review article -- you have contradicted yourself -- by saying the article was no longer a how-to guide but gone and deleted it anyways.
Please UNLOCK the Anal Stretching article. Rfwoolf 07:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You repeatedly re-created it in near-identical words to the deleted version, deleted by a valid AfD, despite being told that was not an option. WP:CSD G4 and WP:SALT apply. In what way is this my fault? Guy (Help!) 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How else am I to improve it but to recreate it perhaps with the original info? And more over, you say "Repeatedly re-created", I recreated it twice, okay, because the first time in the middle of fixing it up yet another admin deleted it for G4. Twice is not 'repeatedly' -- the recreation lock is a little harsh. Unlock please. Deal with people with reason, not admin power.
      I listen to reason, not unilateral actions. Rfwoolf 08:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I also forgot, the main reason for the original deletion was 'how to' -- the article I recreated wasn't 'how to' even according to you (see your comments on deletion review). Remember wikipolicy: Follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter. Don't knee-jerk delete and lock an article while I'm busy trying to fix it up, okay? Rfwoolf 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You re-created an article substantially identical to the one which was deleted by a valid AfD. You were advised not to do that, you did it anyway. Twice. End of story. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments at ANI

Don't bait Fys like he did you. Just help build the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, he was baiting me, actually. Again. He has a history of that, from my reading of it. See User:Fys where he states that the three-revert rule should "die in screaming agony" - from a persistent and multiply-blocked edit warrior, that is tantamount to a declaration of war, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I know he was baiting you. But your reply to him wasn't exactly kosher.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, I should just ignore the trolling. But it's hard. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at it this way: At least your troll hasn't been bothering you all over the internets.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Nasty. Gold star for keeping your cool. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocause

Hi there! I saw you closed this DRV. I wanted to do the same yesterday but I don't know which templates cause that collapsing bar thingy. Please enlighten me? Thanks. (Radiant) 09:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, took me a bit of poking around, too. {{drt}} ({{drt|]|result ~~~}}) and {{drb}} seems to be about right. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting

Thanks for deleting that dumb project page and other pages. (and no, I'm not being sarcastic) :) --RedPooka 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you spotted that I was trying to save your blushes :-) You can request deletion of things you think better of using {{db-user}}. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting information on a banned user

Dear Mr. Chapman:

I write to you to request information regarding the blocking/banning of User:Mr Spunky Toffee, sockpuppet of User:Brian G. Crawford. I ask because I had a run-in with him a couple of months ago, in which he attempted to delete a page I had written and insulted me repeatedly. I was intrigued (but not altogether surprised) to discover a few days ago that he had been blocked as a sock-puppet, but I do know that he had a long history of personal attacks on other users.

What I would like to know is, what was it that got Brian G. Crawford banned from Misplaced Pages in the first place? He is not listed on Misplaced Pages:List of banned users, nor is he included in the Category:Banned Misplaced Pages users. His user page states that "This user is banned from all Wikimedia projects by order of the Foundation." But, the Misplaced Pages:Banning policy page states that "The Wikimedia Foundation has the authority to ban users, though it has not exercised this authority on the English Misplaced Pages."

So frankly, I am a bit confused as to what went on here, which is why I am asking you, as you are the one who discovered that Mr Spunky Toffee was Crawford's sockpuppet. I will understand if this information is confidential or otherwise unavailable; if this is the case please let me know on my talk page. Or, if you would rather talk to me in private (by e-mail or otherwise), let me know and I would be happy to accommodate you.

I thank you in advance for your assistance.

--Eastlaw 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Death threats, I understand. He was banned by Brad Patrick from Foundation, so I don't think anyone will necessarily have the full facts. He was on psychogenic medication at the time, but it's generally considered that he's shot his bolt. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I found this, which certainly explains a few things. I was thinking of asking Brad Patrick about this, but then again, I don't want to get too nosy. Of course, since I am about to graduate from law school, maybe he could help me find work (LOL j/k). Thanks for your help though. --Eastlaw 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day images

You deleted two images that were in teh Sweetest Day article: and . While there were a bunch of images from this editor that were problematic, these two were no up for deletion, and weren't listed in the Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2006 November 29 reference you provide for the reason of removal. Why were they deleted? Some of us think they should remain in the article (Talk:Sweetest Day) - can you undelete them? Not a dog 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Moving target, was the problem. Re-uploading the images faster than they could be IfDd. If he'd simply respected consensus, of course, there would have been no problem... Guy (Help!) 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You also deleted many more images which were not up for deletion including the digital scans of Vera Sissons, Jimmy and Emil observing Sweetest Day, and 3 Sweetest Day editorials from Cleveland Newspapers. These were digital scans from The Cleveland Public Library. They were not even nominated for deletion. You also removed an entire batch of photos which were nominated for deletion, but the debate had only started on December 14, and it seems you removed the debate as well. These images included about 6 high resolution images of the 1910, 1920, and 1930 Cuyahoga County Census Forms containing very readable (and altered) information about Herbert Birch Kingston, the alleged founder of Sweetest Day. Your removal of these images hardly seems careless. Please restore the images which were not nominated, and the December 14 debate on the other images. And while you're at it, why not restore the images being debated also. Next please explain why when Not a dog nominated these images for deletion on December 14 no notification was given to me, and why when Isotope23 made this request for comment I was also not notified. Finally, please explain why you removed my comments from my talk page. They were addressed only to the sneaky snakes, not legitimate Misplaced Pages editors. Miracleimpulse 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You had several opportunities to stop being disruptive, and you ignored them. Your "sneaky snakes" nonsense is just as problematic (and if you re-post it please rest assured I will block you for gross incivility and disruption). You are not in a position to throw your weight around, I'd say. I'm sure if anyone wants more of the images they will come and ask me, I'd say they were weary of your interpretation of the subject and happy to leave it as-is, myself. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So my being "disruptive" for adding factual information to an article is a reason to delete images without nomination or discussion and an entire debate from the history of Misplaced Pages? Where is the record of the December 14 debates? Please provide a link. Miracleimpulse 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And he does have a history of using multiple account in other online spaces: User talk:Miracleimpulse#Multiple accounts?

Mikebe

Can you talk to User:Mikebe please? He's having some problems with another user engaging in POV edits on beer-related articles. I'm very busy IRL right now and will be for the forseeable future and so can't deal with it. (Also, I know nothing about beer). Thanks. JoshuaZ 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For sure. Beer! Mmmmmmm! Guy (Help!) 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Husnock

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— Eagle 101 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Meisterchef

Hey, there. Looking into this user's current unblock request; did you have any particular thoughts or comment on the block? In particular, a more complete explanation of their sockpuppetry, and especially an identification of the sockmaster, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a sock of User:Miracleimpulse, a tremendously disruptive user (see above and Sweetest Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). If you feel the user has mede credible assertions not to be the same individual, feel free to unblock, but the Talk page comment really does not inspire confidence. If not a sock, a likely meatpuppet. Or maybe I'm just a grouch. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Calling editors cult victims

Hi JzG. I would like a sincere answer in defense of you labelling wikipedians as cult victims. In asking you a single legimate question in an appropriate forum.

Your edit here takes an strong view of the article topic and indicates proponents of the article are cult victims. I find this is quite insensitive and I think at worst it comes across as trolling. What was your goal in responding to an editorial dispute by labelling one side of the argument as a cult? I'd like to know your thoughts. 58.178.195.26 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You are reading far more into it than is warranted. NLP is a cultic system (per numerous sources), but that does not imply that anyone who is involved with it is a cultist or cult victim. The entire nest of NLP articles exists primarily to promote the cult of NLP, and that is a pressing problem. Several involved editors have a vested interest in promoting it, that is a pressing problem, too. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Much appreciated. Can you point me to a reliable source that says NLP is a cult? It's government accredited field in my country. Several independent editors have identified falsified references about NLP being a cult in the wikipedia article. I hope you aren't using a wikipedia as a source for your opinion. On the second point. Let's be equal-minded. The incredible amount of NLP forks happened because of the editor that created 10 or more sockpuppets and refused to write anything in the parent article other than "NLP is a cult" in every possible grammatical permutation. A handful of independent editors forked the main article. Nonetheless, over half the editors involved in the Arbcom case are all that one single sockpuppet controller, who has quite possibly returned to run ammok again. He wasted many people's time over many months with his various useraccounts, personalities and theatrics, and was ultimately banned. I hope we can learn from history and this time include all consensus viewpoints in the parent article without dogmatism. I implore you to not take things at face value on the NLP article. Take care. 58.178.157.33 04:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people identify elements of the cult about it. Talk space is not mainspace, so citations are not necessary. NLP is not a mainstream scientific discipline, it is a heavily promoted commercial field and one which is often used to prey on the vulnerable. The whole thing makes me profoundly uneasy. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wolf effect

Added this article to watchlist, although not around much till new year. Have a good vacation. FT2 15:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

3rr for Copyright

I was issued a 3h ban on wp:3RR#User:Alan.ca_reported_by_User:ViriiK_.28Result:_3h.29. I had reverted the image page because Viriik was removing two deletion templates before the copyright dispute was resolved. I thought I was exempt from 3r as it was an obvious copyright violation to me, yet an admin blocked my account anyway. I have contacted you because I noticed you proposed some wording for the section of copyright in the 3r documentation. Please advise. Alan.ca 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pax Equilibrium bulling on Pagania discussion board

Hi JzG. I did what you said, found a verifyable sources, put my comments on the discussion board, and what happens? Pax removed it completely! Now if that's not bulling I don't kow what is. I'm looking for your help, couse you offered it yourself. I don't know what to do any more. this guy is constantly accusing me of being somebody else, puting tag on me and pushing me out. Is this an open encyclopedia?83.131.41.6 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's checking it out with another editor. Understandably, given past events, he's not going to simply accept your word as to what the sources say in full, so please help with specifics of the references. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, he can check it with another editor, it's fine by me, but he can not remove my contribution from the discussion board. He keeps on calling me Afrika Paprika, it's so unreal. I feel like the main character in the Polanski's "Tennent". What can I do to put my comments back?83.131.41.6 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you and the anon proven by CheckUser are one and the same, that's hardly a surprise. Assuming that by your comments you mean this , you're doomed to disappointment. That comes across as a rant, ill-formed arm-waving with no substance. Stick to specifics and evidence, move on. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I ment the last comment I made. The last change in the board. And I repeat, i'm not Afrika. I also told this guy Pax that two oldest contributions on the 194.152.217.129 are not mine. Therefore, there must be someone else using this IP before me. You can not blame me for that and tag me just like that, it's not fer, and it's not Wikipedias spirit (I guess). the easiest way for Pax Equilibrium is to tag me and push me out. I'm here looking for help, cause I'm rather new and don't know all the rules. I did what you told me, put my comment on the discussion board only to be wiped out by Pax. I, as a person, not as an IP (how should I know), never used obscenety or vulgarity on internet, and if I offended somebody somhow, I'm sorry but you never know how a person can be offended. I ask you once more for help. i did what you asked of me, and the erasing from the board was the only result.
83.131.41.6 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you JzG.
83.131.41.6 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm not AP, if that stands for what i think it stands.

From our interactions I am happy to believe that, AP is nothing like this calm and rational as a rule, but I suggest you register an account to distance yourself from the various anons. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I will do that, and let you know my nick :) And, hey, those help pages of yours are helpfull indeed.83.131.55.204 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood

My intentions were not to inflame this. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) {{{alias}}} 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the two 3RR complaints about this, I don't even want to touch any of this with a ten metre (hyuck) pole. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) {{{alias}}} 20:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

MfD

Geez, another day, another MfD, and it's another JzG page being talked about. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Misplaced Pages:Criteria for Speedy Drama. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're my hero, JzG. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Meh, it did the job at the time, I think :-) Guy (Help!) 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)