Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:55, 26 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)

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" (I presume User:Kevin Langdon?) has an easily verified existence IRL and what was the evidence for solicitation? Assuming that you do not wish to reconsider (although I hope you will) 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)

They should at least let the AfD run to its natural close, instead of leaving so many questions open. --Michael C. Price 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, it was deleted and reviewed perfectly correctly, the major argument for keep is form the society's own Internet Officer, and it turns out that the user who created it either is or has a connection to Langham. Add to that the fact that there is only one non-trivial source, and the society is not only tiny but of absolutely no evident influence, and you have a pressing problem for WP:NPOV and WP:V. I should simply have deleted it in the first place. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You perhaps should simply have deleted it, Guy. But you did not. Therefore you should keep the procedure of AfD. And in the discussion, more users voted for the article. Please re-create the article and let the discussion continue. - I do not think that this article is essential for Misplaced Pages; but what is essential for Misplaced Pages is to keep procedures and do not trick users who believe that they are taking part in a fair discussion.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I made an error and then corrected it. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If an error involves other people, you cannot correct it without them. To be arrogant is a bigger error than to let an unimportant article live.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I made an error, I corrected it after it was pointed out to me. I apologise for any disruption this caused. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although calling a halt is not really a good closing argument, Speedied as recreation of deleted content and as A7 (any assertions of notability were dismissed in the first AfD and DRV). would have been fine, with the same result. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd made that clear in the comments. Ah well. I brought it all on myself through deficiency of Clue. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of notability was not established in the original AfD, nor in the subsequent DRV. The AfD was procedurally flawed (as was AfD2, which is the correct forum for debating this). --Michael C. Price 22:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, as a member of the group with a vested interest in keepign the content. Your view was considered at DRV and rejected. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The DRV closing admin explicitly endorsed rework and recreation, as detailed on the deleted article's talk page. Please stop pronoucing on subjects where you not prepared to the required background reading. --Michael C. Price 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my arguments for including an article on the Mega Society in Misplaced Pages. Canon 01:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for text of deleted article

I have recently created an article about Wil Harris and subsequently discovered that a previous article about him has been deleted due to non-notability of the subject. (I believe that the he may now be considered more notable and so the article should hopefully be able to remain).

I was wondering if you'd be able to obtain a copy of the text of the deleted article for me to see if there is anything I can use to improve the new article? Thanks MartinBrook t 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done, also listed for review at WP:DRV. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response :) MartinBrook t 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested undeletion to userspace

Could a copy of the deleted Public Netbase be dropped to a subpage in my userspace? I know the original article wasn't particularly good (and died an expired prod's death), but I think I have materials together to write a survivable one, and I'd like to see what came before to see if its worth building off of with an eye toward eventual GFDL history restoration if I can get a version that will stand. Many thanks, I know you stay busy already! Serpent's Choice 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done Guy (Help!) 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks much, Guy! Not really much there to go on (I'd hoped there might've been a ref I didn't have), but its nice to know what came before. With any luck, I'll have something eligible for a history-only in the next couple days to at least record the work that went into it. Serpent's Choice 15:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Old Friends return

Hi Guy. Don't know if you have noticed but theres been an anonymous IP going around and posting links to law websites on the talkpages of people involved in the old GLF debate which, according to a comment posted by the same IP on the talkpage of User:Omicronpersei8 are links to British legal judgements on internet slander and libel which are extemely pertinent to Misplaced Pages and its administrators, especially those who have previously sneered at UK laws in this respect. I wouldn't give it much credit if it weren't for the fact that another anon IP has been on my talkpage and altered the text of an old discussion concerning the debate, removing names and the like. Any ideas?--Edchilvers 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ave you got the IPs? We should notify this to Foundation, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:81.131.113.140 is the guy going around posting links to the websites on various talkpages (although user:Omicronpersei8 reverted most of his edits in a few minutes, assuming them to be spam) whilst User:217.34.116.57 altered my talkpage.--Edchilvers 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's the best they can do then we have little to worry about: there is a world of difference between calling someone an unrepentant anti-semite and noting a widely-reported conviction which is a matter of public record! The IP has been rolled back; any future nonsense can certainly be reported at WP:ANI or indeed just revert the trolling yourself. It seems to be a drive-by so there's not much more we can do right now. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although it struck me that they might have been seeking to provoke people into making some sort of defensive kneejerk response. Fortunately nobody appears to have taken the bait and an admin was on hand with a revert so no harm seems to have been done. Cheers--Edchilvers 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reverting is the way to handle this kind of crap. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lauder-Frost himself has commented on the issue on a discussion forum:

http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/mSL58BqG2ZmUU

Gregory Lauder-Frost 1177 23-11-2006 11:25 AM GMT Edited by author 23-11-2006 11:25 AM The recent judgements in the Court of Appeal demonstrate that not only the Wikimedia Foundation can now be sued for breaking our laws but so can those editors whom the Foundation would be obliged to identify - especially if the Foundation wished to squeeze out of an action here by denying responsibility and so passing the buck. Being based in North America, our court has ruled, will not stop a judgement being made here. Given that there are increasing mechanisms for enforcement of such judgements I'd be concerned if I were the Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia legal team.

Think we ought to alert Brad?--Edchilvers 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, not least since Brad is of the opinion that this is bullshit. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Closure of Mega Society

I did not have a dog in this fight, since I am not a member and never heard of the society before seeing the Afd. I just like to see established process followed in deletion debates. You apparently closed the debate (early?)and deleted the article without a consensus for deletion. The closure was labelled "Guy" but clicking on the talk link brought me here, so are you also "Guy?" I am not and have never been a sock of anyone. You did not even say you were deleting it, just the you were "calling a halt." How did you determine that there was a consensus for deletion? Were any of those calling for "Keep" determined to be single purpose accounts? How many were established editors with a history of contributing to articles? I count 9 editors, none identifies as new or single purpose accounts calling for Keep and 5 calling for Delete. Thanks. Edison 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a G4 and conflict of interest situation, the fact that others have been sucked in is regrettable and entirely my fault. The society has a couple of dozen members; looks like 10% of the entire membership is here boosting the article! I should never have opened the can of worms. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you cancel the "call a halt" and allow the AfD to progress, or even withdraw the AfD altogether? You clearly have a conflict of interest in both raising and suspending the AfD. --Michael C. Price 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you may, since you have a vested interest in the content. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What vested interest? --Michael C. Price 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/177.pdf, for example. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Membership is not the same as a vested interest; association articles are typically editted by members of associations. If you're sure of your case why not let the AfD continue? Don't you have a far greater conflict of interest as the AfD raiser, as has been pointed out by others as well? --Michael C. Price 06:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael, you are accusing me of a conflict of interest, but you have a conflict of interest. You and your associates have caused more than enough disruption with this vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you fail to address the questions raised? What is your problem with this? An AfD is meant to be a debate, not a pronouncement by one individual who is quick to assume bad faith and see conflicts of interest in others, but seems singularly incapable of recognising the same problems with his own conduct. Your claims need discussion, not assertion. That's why these procedures exist. --Michael C. Price 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you spend so much time arguing for an article on a tiny vanity society with which you are associated, re-created out of process by someone else associated with the society, after it was deleted and kept deleted at review? Oh, wait, I think I might know the answer here... Guy (Help!) 08:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You claim it is a vanity society, others say otherwise; again your claims needs discussion not assertion. If you examine the original AfD you will see that it was procedurally flawed, since there was no consensus for deletion; there was also the usual confusion between Chris "CTMU" Langan and his Mega Foundation and the distinct Mega Society. Your claim about it being recreated out of process is incorrect, as I pointed out on the now deleted talk:Mega Society, I was explicitly given leave by the closing admin to recreate it at the DRV. Finally, I note again, you hint at bad faith. --Michael C. Price 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"You and your associates have caused more than enough disruption with this vanispamcruftisement..." Guy, please, be not paranoic and do not accuse without proofs. For example I am not a member of the society, nor an associate of Michael. In fact, I found the AfD discussion only by chance. And moreover, there is no rule prohibiting members to edit articles about their organizations and to discuss them - so please do not use false arguments ad hominem. I think that your behaviour in this case is not OK and can corrupt your good reputation here. Please, rethink the whole case once more after a good cup of tea. :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There are three individuals associated with the group who between them are responsible for most of the edits, most of the argument, and the out of process re-creation. In the end, the group fails the primary notability criterion (multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject). We have one borderline non-trivial independent secondary source cited. The involvement of parties with a clear conflict of interest, and virtually nobody else, means a problem for WP:V and WP:NPOV as well, and the absence of any significant number of sources underlines that. Almost all the article was, in any case, a discussion of the validity of IQ tests above 4sd from the mean, which belongs in IQ. Once that is stripped out we have existence, namechecks, and nothing else. No evidence of objective significance has ever been produced (the sole acceptable source seems to regard it as a curiosity). There is some evidence of !vote solicitation and no evidence that this society has any importance outside the minds of its members, who are the main ones arguing for its inclusion. The group gets under 700 Google hits outside of Misplaced Pages and forums, zero Google News hits, nothing apparently relevant on an academic search, either for the group or citing their journal. In short, they appear, by reference to the standard tests, to be less significant than me - I score over three times the number of Google hits and have citations in some learned journals. And believe me, there is nothing notable about me. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I have no doubt that Mega Society is not extremely notable - in fact I regard it as a clear borderline case and I will surely not cry for it if it will be deleted. But if you have initiated a discussion, you should respect rights of those who were involved. I am sorry, but as clever as you are, you are still not a super-user with a monopoly on truth. Even if the users are members of the society, they have still the same right to speak as other users including you and me. Understand me: I do not protest against the result, but against the procedure, against the idea that one admin has automatically more right than nine rank and file users. I lived here in Prague too many years under almighty leaders with a monopoly on truth, so I do not wish to repeat these experiences. - Regarding the sources, they mentioned at least two independent important ones: The Wall Street Journal and the Guiness Book of Records. This is much more than in cases of many other articles about local schools and local bands and obscure video games. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And there are the Omni articles. Omni sold very well in the UK for many years (and probably in the States as well); their repeated coverage of the Mega Society indicates a commercial recognition of public interest in the subject. The professed lack of notability is not as self-evident as Guy indicates. Follow procedures and allow a discussion. --Michael C. Price 13:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ioannes, it is like this: I initiated the discussion in error. I should have read the DRV with more care. I corrected my error, prompted by comments at the AfD I mistakenly opened. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If the AfD was mistakenly opened then calling a halt to it shouldn't cause the article to be deleted; restore it and we can all be done. --Michael C. Price 14:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, no kewpie doll. I did what I should have done in the first place and deleted the vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you not noticed that AfDs get closed early all the time when the article qualifies as a speedy delete? -- Donald Albury 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you not noticed that a speedy delete was rejected just a few weeks ago? --Michael C. Price 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you not noticed your conflict of interest yet? Guy (Help!) 00:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged awhile ago, unlike yours. --Michael C. Price 00:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

...which is illusory. Like I said, if I'd simply deleted this outright as I should have, we would not be having this discussion. No, actually, looking at your history with respect to this subject, we probably would be... Guy (Help!) 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Judge, jury and executioner. Why do you think AfDs exist? Or the DRV closer advised rework and repost? --Michael C. Price 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

Fyi, this is now live. I kept the article semi-protected, as it was before. I'll leave it up to you if you want to change it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society recreated by sock puppet

Hi!

I am sorry to bother you with this but a little under an hour ago Mega Society was recreated by a single-purpose account. Also, moments after my speedy tag was removed by Michael Price. Could you salt and block please? Also should I request CheckUser on Michael Price given his mysterious appearence moments after a single purpose account recreated the article?

Cheers, MartinDK 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardly mysterious: it's on my watchlist. Do do a UserCheck. --Michael C. Price 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have lots of deleted articles on my watchlist, too. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, could you, as an admin, restore the Mega Society and its talk page, with histories? User:JzG admits he raised the 2nd AfD in error but refuses to restore the article in despite of a number of complaints on his talk page, from various users, about his violation of procedure. Or should I go to arbitration? --Michael C. Price talk 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Avraham"

cannot restore it directly per wiki policy. I suggest first WP:DRV and perhaps mention on WP:AN/I. -- Avi 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If the problem continues I might take it to WP:AN/I, although it has just become moot since someone else has just re-created it. Well, sort of... --Michael C. Price talk 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MichaelCPrice"

Thanks for solving the problem. The above conversation in mind I'll assume good faith and just let it be. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to ask you first since I'm still kind of new here when it comes to these things. Still sounds like an odd sequence of events to me but it doesn't matter anymore. MartinDK 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this page need protection as well? --DaturaS 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Castle Park deletion

Just curious why you deleted "Castle Park, Michigan" wiki? You did not provide a reason.

There is a reason stated in the deletion, but for the record the entire contents of the article was Castle Park is a small private community of 100 summer houses and cottages along the Lake Michigan shore. The community has a small castle built in 1890 by a German immigrant businessman, Michael Schwarz. No sources, no claim of significance. I was just the janitor here anyway, User:Elonka tagged it for speedy deletion due to failure to make any claim of notability. Small private communities? Hard to think where they fit on the notability guidelines. If you can find a number of non-trivial independent sources of some authority then perhaps it might pass, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Metrocenter Mall (Mississippi)

I am not particularly interested in retailing in Mississippi, but I was able to find two references for Metrocenter Mall (Mississippi). Viewing the full article costs money, but the free preview gives you a general idea of what the article is about. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1584/is_200410/ai_n7035153 Mississippi Business Journal, October, 2004 by Lynn Lofton "Metrocenter-area businesses stay optimistic despite departure; coalition cleaning house to attract new faces" As well, an article in the Jackson Free Press at http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/cover_comments.php?id=354_0_9_0_C describes the mall's curfew policy. If you think these articles establish notability, could you please restore the article and add the references? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Colonial Mall Decatur

Umm, can you please explain to me why the Colonial Mall Decatur was deleted. You gave no reason, that I could find. I looked in the pages for deletion and could not find it listed. Please, tell me why you, for some odd reason, deleted this article. AlaGuy 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, I don't believe that the article was a directory or spam. I created the page and I am in no way form or fashion related to the mall. I despise the place. I really don't understand why it was deleted. Now, if someone spammed the site, wouldn't it just make more sense to delete the spam and delete the IP address or user? AlaGuy 19:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pecanland Mall

This was a very informative article, even if it had mistakes, did not deserve deletion. As a newbie, I do not know the proper channels for things here, nor do I wish to, however I ask that you look into the deletion of this article. Thanks!

WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Cynwyd Elementary School

Regardless of the result of the earlier AfD, and regardless of when it occured, articles can and are recreated after "failing" an AfD. In many cases, the explicit purpose of a redirect is to allow the article to be recreated once additional information is available to establish notability. If you compare the article as it exists now after undoing your revert to the one that existed at the time of the AfD, you will see that the article has been expanded, is fully sourced, and makes explicit claims of notability. Pursuing a WP:DRV is not an option, as I have no issue whatsoever with the decision based on the state of the article at the point the the AfD was created and the decision made to "Speedy Delete" was not unjustified at the time. If you feel that the article in its current state does not merit inclusion in Misplaced Pages, the next step would be to create another AfD. Alansohn 14:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Call me jaded, but seeing it back in all it's "glory" so soon after the AfD looks awfully like "I don't like that result, I think I'll just ignore it". The next step surely should be DRV, rather than simply ignoring the (very recent) AfD. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will call you jaded. Please share with me a specification of how long one must wait to recreate an article and I will wait the requisite amount of time. Now that it exists, it either meets criteria for retention or it does not. Pursuing a WP:DRV can only challenge the legitimacy of the original AfD, which I do not question. In the rush to close this, there was no time to enhance the article to meet the issues that had been raised. They have been addressed, necessarily post facto, and stand to serve the community for this article. Alansohn 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Longer than you did, anyway. If you'd taken the new information to DRV I'm confident the result would have been no problem, and I am certainly no process wonk, policy is all, but I think you'd have to agree it doesn't look good, does it? It's not like there is any kind of widespread consensus to keep schools at this level, there are simply too many of them. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have often advocated that the Baseball Hall of Fame should limit itself to say a net of one new member per year. You'd be able to add more than one in a given year, but you'd have to knock out some existing members to fit in the new ones. We don't have that issue on Misplaced Pages. If an article meets retention criteria, it should be kept, regardless of how many we have just like it. I agree that all schools are not notable and that many elementary school articles should be deleted. The fact that there is widespread consensus hasn't help prevent AfDs for high school articles, and the fact that there is an opposite consensus on many elementary schools doesn't mean that all should be deleted. It doesn't look good? It looks like someone took the time to improve the article, and it either stands on its own as it exists or it doesn't. Alansohn 00:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

The only reason I didn't take you to arbitration is because you are part of the cabal and I am not. Your repeated threats to block Skybum for saying something he never said should alone have been punishable; not to mention your repeated wholesale reverts, repeated unfounded accusations of POV-pushing, and admitted conflict of interest with Avidor (so much of a fan of Avidor that you, a deletionist, created and defended the barely-notable Roadkill Bill article - yet you never recused yourself from that mediation).

Now, you grossly mis-characterize the dispute in the Non-notability arbitration. It's one thing to repeatedly ignore the rules on the little-viewed PRT pages, it's quite another to bend the truth to attack Fresheneesz in his arbitration, where everyone is watching. That, to me, is the last straw. If I thought I had a snowball's chance of breaking through the Misplaced Pages cabal mentality, you'd be in arbitration today. The evidence is certainly all there.

But I'm enough of a realist to know that arb com will not rule against you unless you do something that overtly hurts the project. You are on the inside, the four of us were not, therefore there was no way I was going to win in arbitration.. The difference between Fresheneesz and me is he is more idealistic than I am. I knew the Misplaced Pages oligarchy was impenetrable unless I sold out; Fresheneesz thought he could fight the cabal and win. The current status of his arbitration is yet more proof that my cynical view is dead-on.

So, go ahead, call me a megalomaniac if it makes you happy. I choose the term "realist": I now know what Misplaced Pages is, how it works, and how to protect it from POV abuses like the one you tried to pull on the PRT pages. I check in here every now and then, and I've got a few articles on my watchlist in case you decide to go on another crusade in support of your favorite cartoonist. So instead of thinking of me as a megalomaniac, maybe you should consider me a watchdog - someone who faced real MPOV (from someone on the inside, no less) and won, and continues to watch diligently for future abuses. Nothing more, nothing less. ATren 17:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I rather wish you had. Since every other person who came along told you exactly the same thing I did, it might finally have persuaded you that when lots and lots of people tell you that you are wrong, sometimes it's because you are wrong. Oh, and my favourite cartoonist is Scott Adams. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You prove my point! It's a cabal... of course they all agreed with you! Why do you think I didn't go to arb com, because I didn't have a case? Of course I had a case. I still have a spreadsheet with links to all of your abusive edits. The only reason I didn't go because I wouldn't get a fair arbitration against an admin like yourself - all your buddies would swarm into the debate and defend you regardless of the merits of the case.

So I had to fight for all my changes, and after months of persistence, every single one of the edits you summarily reverted eventually got in. Despite your insider status and blatant ownership issues, I was able to defend the article from your POV pushing. Not with mediation and arbitration - those are worthless for non-admins - I did it with patience, research, and dogged persistence. That's what Fresheneesz doesn't yet understand: trying to change the way things are will never work for outsiders like us. The best we can do is fight for truth on a case by case basis, even when someone as influential as yourself tries to elevate cartoon to fact. ATren 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that how it looks in ATrenWorld? Glad the rest of us don't live there. As for being influential, I think that's an amusing piece of nonsense. there is nocabal, but even if there were I would not be counted part of it. Influential editors are people like Uncle G. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now - there's no cabal because the cabal says there isn't! Now you've got me laughing out loud! Thanks for the comic relief.

As for "conspiracy theories", I'm not the one who believes that PRT is a worldwide conspiracy against trains... ATren 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither am I. But I don't believe the article reflects anything I'm likely to see in my lifetime, either, so at least I live in the real world :-) Guy (Help!) 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And what you believe is all that matters, right? WP:OWN. ATren 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Another priceless gem! ATren accuses me of WP:OWN! I'm lovin' it :-D Guy (Help!) 23:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to post the countless reverts on PRT where you basically decided your version was the right one and reverted us on sight? Would that make you laugh even harder? Would you like me to post the links to your threats to block Skybum for opposing you? Would that make you fall on the floor laughing? How about links to you repeatedly accusing us of POV pushing even when we tried to engage you in real debate? Would that send you into a paroxysm of uncontrollable laughter? ATren 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Better go and get your Spider-Man suit. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You mock that which you cannot defend. In any event, I will post the evidence on my user page, and then every time you try to insinuate that the four of us were at fault, I can just point to that evidence. It won't make a difference to your status, because your position makes you immune to reprimand, but at least other editors will be able to see your abuses for themselves. ATren 00:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I mock you because you are indefensible :-) Guy (Help!) 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So I assume by your light hearted responses you have no objection to me posting this evidence on my user page? ATren 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by evidence. Here is the difference between the article as I found it and the article as I left it to Stephen ; here is the difference between that and what I think was Stephen's first big batch of changes and here is the difference between that and now: . My major problem with the article was the uncritical acceptance of anything published by Schneider or Anderson, the number of links to their opinions, and the apparent need to "balance" every point which was even slightly sceptical with something from a True Believer. My major problem with you and Fresh was your resolute determination to paint your own bias as neutrality, something to which I see you are still prey. I have biases, I am open about them. I have no bias on the subject of PRT, because it does not yet exist in the form described and there is no realistic prospect of it existing in the near future, so it has no impact on my daily transportation. I am perceived as strongly anti-car; this, too, is fallacious - I am pro-cycling and pro public transport, I tend to describe aggressive and excessively fast driving as selfish and anti-social, which is a problem for those who wish to pretend that their actions have no effect on others, but in an average week I will use bikes, trains, buses and my car (which is, I must shamefacedly admit, a large and powerful one).

Your entire view of me is coloured by the simple fact that I find RoadKill Bill funny. Don't you? Or are you so obsessed with its author that you are unable to see the bitter truth of what he is saying about modern urban planning? And do you honestly think that my entire view of a subject would be entirely dominated by the opinion of someone I don't even know? That's a pretty jaded view I reckon. My view on PRT has not changed much since I first read the article. It's an interesting concept but essentially untried; we have no real idea whether it would ever scale to the size described in the article because there are far too many untested assumptions; it faces so many obstacles from vested interest that it will probably be a long time if ever before we see a wide-scale implementation. I have a major problem with an article being used to sell the concept. I have a major problem with the article on UniModal as I found it, since the product has no existence other than as a sales pitch - even the Moller Skycar at least has a prototype. I have a major problem with articles where the only reliable sources are proponents of a new or emerging technology, because it is virtually impossible to ensure WP:NPOV (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for more examples). And I have a major problem with people who see everything in black and white, with anything other than uncritical agreement being seen as implacable opposition, although I recognise that this is a natural result of any polarised political debate (which is what PRT was then and to an extent still is even though the proposals seem to have died a death again). I also have a major problem with people who read every word I write through a filter, looking for evidence to reinforce their prejudices rather than trying to understand what I'm saying. I am not a stupid man, I am not unduly prone to intellectual rigidity, I have a pretty fair working knowledge of how this place works, and I am not afraid to admit my mistakes. To hear your version of events you would think that I am some kind of mindless zealot.

Just to take one tiny part of my issues with the PRT proponents' arguments: if you said to everyone that you could produce an electric car that was the same price as an IC engined car, just as fast, just as comfortable, and asked if they would buy it on that basis, would you take the results of that survey as being a valid and neutral indication of the public acceptance of electric vehicles per se? I'm guessing you would not be so naive. And yet we had arguments on the PRT article for ridership assumptions based on just that kind of model. Any model which assumes the public - and the pollsters - are being entirely objective, is fatally flawed. In polls, everyone says they are in favour of looking after the poor in society. In the polling booth, they vote consistently further to the right than they poll. Any reason to think they won't make similar judgements when it comes to trading their car for a PRT journey? We should be sceptical of such an assumption absent some credible real-world evidence, and there ain't going to be any of that until a system is built, and that ain't going to happen without someone being incredibly brave. Urban planners can be brave, as a look at the Düsseldorf skyline will attest, but most are more concerned about staying in office. Of course, I am a cynic, when it comes to politicians. Follow the money, and all. And the money here is usually not with those proposing radical new schemes, is it? It's with the existing vested interests. When GM produces a PRT system then I will certainly sit up and take notice.

Anyway, you will, I'm sure, do just as you like. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

<<===reset indent

Yet again, you vastly mis-characterize what that debate was about. Skybum, Fresh and I agreed with many of your edits. We came to agreement on ridership and many other debatable issues when you bothered to listen to our arguments. The problem was you were insistent in forcing an unverifiable skepticism on the science of PRT. I'm not talking about marketing, or whether it will ever succeed - I'm talking about the science that is indisputable, and which you repeatedly sprinkled with ridiculously skeptical phrases like "stations may be located on sidings" because the word "would" was somehow too strong - even though offline stations are fundamental to PRT designs. Your insistence in aggressively pushing this unjustified skepticism of the science, along with your refusal to treat us as anything more than mindless proponents, was what we most objected to. After months of debate you refused to even read our comments - writing us off as just a bunch of POV pushers even as we agreed with 90% of your edits. And even as you were pushing to get Avidor's cartoon in the article - an attack cartoon drawn by an anti-science luddite whose arguments have zero foundation in reality - you were suppressing the words of Schneider and Anderson, two PhD's and researchers with dozens of peer-reviewed, published works! And we were the POV pushers! Even as we produced rock-solid sources like journals and textbooks (which you rejected because they came from the off-limits Anderson and Schneider), you were pushing inclusion of material from a pro-light-rail advocacy site filled with anonymously-written anti-PRT propaganda! This is your idea of balance! This is your idea of neutrality! And we were the biased ones! Laughable!

In the next few weeks, will post my evidence on my talk page so you can no longer make your ridiculous claims in the future. ATren 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to cite all the real-world examples of wide-scale PRT from which the operating assumptions are drawn, will you?

Yes, I thought I was wasting my time writing the above - I suppose one day you might read something I write without the filters in place, but not this time. Has it never occurred to you that the virtual absence of any discussion of this topic in any source outside of its proponents is significant? The only really good source we found, that is, a commentary by a neutral third party of some evident authority, said precisely that: the literature is dominated by uncritical coverage from proponents. No doubt you're perfectly comfortable with an article that relies almost exclusively for its content on people who are trying to sell a novel idea, I'm not, never have been, and non--negotiable policy suggests that I may be right. We've deleted articles for that concern in the past.

I see that you attacked me as Avidor's biggest fan on Misplaced Pages, in the blog thread linked below, which may or may not be true (it wouldn't take much fandom to be a bigger fan than me, but I don't know how many other fans there are). At least, though, I'm capable of understanding the difference between a battleground and an encyclopaedia. I'd remind you not to bring your battles to Misplaced Pages, but of course your bias is neutral, isn't it? Silly of me to think otherwise. Are you from Minnesota, I wonder? Not that I care, the real-world fights of silly, vain politicians have not much to do with Misplaced Pages for the most part. I do think that castigating me for daring to admit to liking RKB while apparently thinking nothing of happy talk page comments about messages from "Doug" makes you look a bit foolish, but I'm just an admin who wandered into a POV war, so what would I know? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

More spin. I did not bring the battle to Misplaced Pages, Avidor did. I just joined the fight, like you. But you've never been able to look at Avidor's actions objectively, have you? I can understand, we tend to idealize those we idolize, but really man, don't you think this is taking it a bit too far? This is a guy who believes that there is a vast global anti-transit conspiracy hiding behind PRT, and tried his best to include this ridiculous, unverifiable content in the article. He also repeatedly tried to use Misplaced Pages to advance his political activities, a blatant abuse. When I and others tried to block him, you came down on us! According to you, I was a POV pusher for resisting the addition of political propaganda to an encyclopedia as you, an admin, defended the propagandist!

Even when we supplied sources with rock solid credentials, you arbitrarily blocked them in favor of propaganda from completely unreliable sources! After we called you on this, you dug through the literature and found a single insignificant conference paper that implied PRT literature could be more self-examining (though not even criticizing PRT itself!), and you immediately elevated that single paper above the reams of hard research produced by Anderson and Schneider.

So who's the one with the bias, JzG? Me, who accepted 90% of your edits and only objected to some instances where verifiable responses to criticism were arbitrarily suppressed; or you, an admitted devout fan of the editor on other side; you, who tried to push the Light Rail Now astroturfing site as an academic journal (!!!); you, who repeatedly rejected 100% of my edits (as well as Skybum, Fresh, and JJLatWiki), even when they were uncontestably backed by verifiable research! Who has the bias, JzG?

You can spin it any way you want, but this is a Wiki - the evidence is all there. You'll be seeing it in all its detail shortly. ATren 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If your entire case is based on the characterisation of one source which provided much-needed balance to the egregious puffery of the Anderson / Schneider fanwanks, then you haven't got much going for you. The fundamental truth which you still don't seem to acknowledge is that this is a technology which is virtually ignored outside of its proponents, and that presents a pressing problem for Misplaced Pages per our neutrality policy. "Verifiable fact" as you call it amounts in almost every case to a claim the making of which can be verified but the truth of which cannot because no system exists on which to base it. Who knows, we haven't yet seen what the cost constraints of a real-world installation will do. Maybe the outlying ones won't be. Or maybe they will. How do we define inherent, in a hypothetical construct? Inherent properties? Who knows? We haven't seen what the inevitable horse-trading of a practical installation will yield. Stations always off the guideway? Morgantown is stated not to be "true" PRT, but who's to say? What do sources independent of those trying to sell small-pod PRT make of it? Well, nothing, actually, because they don't seem to talk about that either. See what I mean? All that argumentation about sub-second headways - pure speculation! Yes, we can model mathematically what happens in idealised circumstances, but we have no idea how it will work out in practice because no system exists with sufficient track and sufficient pods (and sufficient users and sufficient variation in demand and and and...) to verify it operationally. Teaming ditto. Even the systems now in build will not tell us because they do not approach the scale described in the article; there are not enough pods in the system as specified right now for it to be an issue, by the looks of it, but who knows, because there is nothing operational. When the Heathrow system opens the article will be ready for a rewrite documenting the real installation, and the fandom can be relegated to a short paragraph describing what proponents state to be the capability of the technology, and the article will then be on a much firmer footing. Until that time what we have is an article on a theoretical concept which is largely unsupported by any critical judgement independent of its proponents; the best we can say from reliable independent sources is that there aren't many reliable independent sources. Paint that any colour you like, it's still a concern. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to reject peer-reviewed research that has demonstrated the concepts, from simulations to engineering drawings to 1:12 prototypes to full scale functioning prototypes that have carried passengers. Your skepticism is based on nothing but ignorance of the research and a steadfast refusal to accept the science. You shield your eyes to the research, and then claim there is no science! It's an anti-scientific position that rivals creationism.

Fact is, you will never be satisfied by PRT research, because you reject it with circular reasoning: scientists who study PRT automatically become proponents, which in turn invalidates the research. No amount of science can ever break through someone who argues from such a position of intentional ignorance. In this case, the science refutes the skepticism, a verifiable fact that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. And you want to become a member of the arbcom? Based on my (and others') extremely frustrating experience with you, I cannot imagine a worse candidate for a position of judicial authority. ATren 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As always, you fundamentally misunderstand. I am distrustful of any subject which has no sources outside of its proponents, this is absolutely not restricted to PRT. The worst example in my memory was Aetherometry, and it was the devil's own job getting rid of that one. Perhaps you can cite the evidential basis for your purported "fact" that I will never be satisfied by PRT research? Actually, as I've said before, I'd be really happy to see some discussion in the engineering journals to give us a more solid basis for the article. The problem is not the quality of the sources, it's the fact that they are all biased - a point noted by the one genuinely independent source we have found thus far. It may be significant that even in transport-specific issues I don't recall any discussion of PRT in the journal of my institution. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Journal of Advanced Transportation is not acceptable to you? A quick search reveals several articles on PRT, and most are not written by Anderson or Schneider. But of course JAT isn't good enough... the only "journal" you'll accept in the article is Light Rail Now.

In addition to the JAT sources, you conveniently ignore the Irving textbook which is widely regarded as the foundation of PRT research, laying down all of the significant theory and design tradeoffs. Much of the work that's followed is based on this text, including many of Anderson's designs, papers, and textbooks. But again, you choose to ignore such rock-solid sources in favor of (1) Avidor's propaganda, (2) a single conference paper which encourages more self-analysis among PRT researchers but doesn't actually criticize PRT directly, and (3) your own opinion that such a system will ever come about. Somehow, these three completely irrelevant and/or unreliable points trump the decades of research conducted by hundreds of researchers on three continents. Oh, yeah, but none of that research counts because anybody involved with PRT is automatically a proponent, therefore automatically disqualified from the debate. ATren 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And the real-world system on which the hypotheses are based is? Oh, wait, I forgot - there are no real-world systems, are there? So once again we fall back on the claims of proponents, in the absence of any coverage in the mainstream engineering journals. I don't think I ever implied any lack of pioeple saying what a jolly good idea it would be, only a lack of independent critique. It's funny, though, how we have this long article on an extensive urban transportation system, but the only planned implementation is in a car park. Does that not strike you as odd? Guy (Help!) 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So here we go again. I give you reliable sources, you ignore them. You accept blogs and advocacy sites as skeptical sources, but reject textbooks and journal articles as biased. It doesn't get any more blatant than that, does it? POV pushing at its finest, from an admin and wanna-be arbcom member no less! Are you seriously rejecting peer reviewed journals and textbooks in favor of your prediction that it will never work?

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, yet you would reject all this verifiable research solely based on your gut feeling that it will not (future tense - will not) work. You're the one predicting the future, JzG. What we have today is research and engineering on the theory of operation, and several fully functioning prototypes to validate that research. We also have pro and con arguments about applicability in a city - arguments that are implicitly debatable because there is no city system, but these applicability arguments do not invalidate the research and engineering! Your position is to look into the future, decide it will never work, and use that assumption to invalidate the verifiable research we have today. It's an anti-science (and anti-encyclopedic) position. ATren 00:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud! It's not verifiable, it's speculative! We can verify that the speculation has been made, but no system has ever progressed beyond prototype, some have not even got that far, and the only ones we know of that are in build are nothing like the system described in the article. We can't verify the supposedly inherent properties of PRT because the systems which are out there do not all seem to share those inherent properties, a problem which PRT proponents get around by simply stating that they are not PRT, which is simply a statement of belief and not a provable fact. If we define PRT as x, and this system does not meet x, then it is not PRT, but that begs the question of whether it is in fact correct to characterise x as an inherent property of PRT; with so little in the literature that is a problematic assertion. Add to that the fact that several individuals and groups are out there vigorously promoting this for commercial and political ends, and you have a problem for WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable core policy. As the man said, the literature is dominated by a lack of critical thinking, which is also a problem for WP:NPOV. If you view this from the perspective of a fan of PRT, then WP:NPOV is the problem. If you view it from the perspective of a Misplaced Pages admin, then PRT is the problem. You do not appear ever to have accepted these fundamental issues. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You will never get it will you! Peer reviewed research is peer reviewed research, regardless of your particular biases! You are calling into question journal articles and textbooks based on the ramblings of a cartoonist with an agenda! Snap out of it man - your rationality is being held hostage by your fanatical admiration for a cartoon! Go to Google Scholar and search on "personal rapid transit" and tell me which of the hundreds of journal articles, conference papers, and text books, written by dozens of authors on three contentents are not mindless proponents with alterior motives - then we can take the sources you do trust and enhance the article with them. I understand - this is how Misplaced Pages works: the admins get to set the ground rules according to their biases, so go ahead, search Google Scholar and tell me what I can and cannot use so I don't go wasting my time bringing journal papers that don't fit your particular idea of what's verifiable in this particular case. ATren 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Will it ever end? For me it will end soon. The two chief PRT-promoting elected officials in Minnesota face jail time for criminal offences... too bad the Misplaced Pages PRT article has nothing about that. Zimmermann will be likely sentenced for his bribery conviction in January and Mark Olson will go on trial for domestic assault next month Avidor 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... pointless links back to his own blog. Why isn't this considered linkspam, JzG? You're against linkspam, unless it's posted by your cartoonist idol. You're a fierce deletionist, except when it comes to your own fancruft. You're unswerving in protecting Misplaced Pages against abuse, but you steadfastly refuse to criticise Avidor's well-documented abuses. Why is that, JzG? Do the rules not apply to you and your friends? ATren 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link not on that articleAvidor 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how much time PRT wastes... but that's what it's designed to do. It's unfortunate that Misplaced Pages doesn't treat PRT the way it treats other wedge issues like intelligent design or what David Barton pushes, both of which PRT-promoters Michele Bachmann and Mark Olson also promote. I predicted that the Misplaced Pages PRT article would be cited by Olson supporters to validate Mark Olson's PRT claims and it was .... if the Misplaced Pages PRT had said the plain truth about PRT, Olson and maybe Bachmann would not have been elected. The plain truth is that PRT is a scam promoted by scoundrels like Olson and Zimmermann to confuse people about real transportation choices.... here's something that indicates just how phony PRT is; a recent conference of the Advanced Transit Association could barely pull in 90 people, half of them were probably PRT proponents... the media didn't even cover it.... just a blogger with an axe to grind with the City of Santa Cruz....I hope somebody soon goes back and fixes that article, but it doesn't matter much now because Zimmermann is out of office and Olson will likely have to resign after his trial in December. Michele Bachmann hasn't mentioned PRT, and I doubt she will when she gets to Washington. If you check the links on the Misplaced Pages PRT page, you'll find a bunch of dead PRT websites. Taxi 2000's news page stopped posting news in 2004 and Skyloop has been dead since 2001...there has been nothing new about PRT in Dubai for a year. Time to overhaul that page... oh, and ATren lives in Buffalo, NY, not MInnesota..... Good luck!..... (I see the revert war has just started up again over at the PRT page)Avidor 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Avidor, such a pity that you couldn't manipulate Misplaced Pages to sway your election.

JzG, how do you feel about falsifying a Misplaced Pages article to affect a political campaign? Since you've never discouraged Avidor's political maneuvering here - in fact, you've faithfully supported him at every turn, and even acted at his behest a few times - maybe you should make your position perfectly clear on this kind of activity. I think it's wholly inappropriate for an admin (and arb com candidate) to give even the slightest impression that he supports such abuse, and therefore I think you should explicitly state your position on Avidor's activities: his constant link spamming back to his blogs, his attempts to replace the entire article with "PRT is BOGUS", his edit-warring on the NPOV tag (which was done solely so he could reference the disputed article in his campaign, by pointing back to the tagged article and claiming it was infiltrated by cultists - never mentioning that it was he who put the NPOV tag in the first place), his MPOV (after learning he couldn't put his conspiracy theories in the article, he lashed out at Misplaced Pages, left the project, and joined Misplaced Pages Review). Not to mention his direct pleas to you and others that the PRT article be changed because of upcoming elections. JzG, what is your view of these activities? ATren 04:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was aprt of the problem, misrepresenting PRT as a practical mode of wide-scale public transport in order to support a political agenda, I'm glad you have finally realised why that is a problem. Oh, no, sorry, I just re-read it - you're portraying your own biases as neutrality again! Guy (Help!) 09:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you had no problem with Avidor's political manipulations. No problem with manipulating the POV tag to give the appearance of "cultists infiltrating Misplaced Pages". No problems with adding ridiculous conspiracy theories to the article at election time. No problem spreading linkspam back to his political blogs to spread his political message. Correct? ATren 15:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a point where you realize that you are not in a discussion, but like the Monty Python "Argument Sketch" you are in an argument with someone who gets their kicks by being in an argument. A.T.E is a classic internet troll. He was banned from the Seattle Post Intelligencer discussion board for this sort of endless, endless argument and ranting.... Instead of wasting your time, I suggest kicking this PRT page controversy upstairs to whoever runs Misplaced Pages. I suggest they conduct their own research instead of relying on info from PRT proponents like ATren. I also suggest that they not use the the internet alone which has been Google-bombed by the PRT proponents with countless PRT websites... notice that no matter what version of PRT, the PRT websites never fail to knock rail transit as "too old" or "too expensive" or whatever... I strongly suggest contacting transportation engineers and transit advocay groups. I also suggest looking at Professor Vukan Vuchic's books particularly "Transportation for Livable Cities" where he gives PRT only a few paragraphs...here's a scan... that's all PRT deserves. Most of all there is the real world out there where no ful scale PRT system exists.... and trains do. Please take this matter to a higher level. Thank you.Avidor 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see more links to sceptics have been "pruned" from the PRT page... It's amusing that someone who is obsessed about me to the point of devoting an entire blog on me and attack me here on this page would also attempt to erase any link to my web site on the PRT page.... I have another suggestion, this time for ATren; Why not start a Misplaced Pages page on Ken Avidor. You could reveal everything about me.... it's a golden opportunity to discredit me once and for all. I'm surprised you and David Gow didn't think of it. Of course, somebody is likely to say that a critic of something that doesn't exist (PRT) is not worty of note.... and I'd have to agreee with that. But, there is so much more that I have done that you and David Gow have already Googled up and posted on your blogs... it would be a shame to let all that research go to waste.... put it up on Misplaced Pages and I promise I will never edit the Ken Avidor page... GO FOR IT, ATren!!!Avidor 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Page on an Arizona shopping mall deleted without warning

Metrocenter Mall on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metrocenter Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Paradise Valley Mall on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paradise Valley Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

(Apologies for placing this in the wrong area at first)

I have been editing pages on shopping centers in the Phoenix, AZ area, where I live, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up.

Today I found that the page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted by you citing (WP:CSD G11, spam,) as a reason. I would beg to disagree with your conclusion as 1) Metrocenter is a major shopping center in Phoenix, one of the USA's major cities and 2) using such criteria would arguably disqualify several dozen articles on shopping malls, including all the other ones in the Phoenix area (see List of shopping malls in the United States). Shopping centers are a topic of great social, cultural and economic significance in the USA and worldwide and deserve coverage on Misplaced Pages. Articles on them should not be deleted. Please strongly consider reposting the article, and/or I will begin a replacement article within 48 hours. I have posted a complaint on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Msr69er 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See several sections above. I deleted a very large number of articles many of which were part of an evident spamming campaign and all of which seemed to me to be directory entries, one of the things that Misplaced Pages is not. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am making a similar assertion that the article Paradise Valley Mall needs to be reinstated on the same grounds. I disagree that any of the articles on the Phoenix Westcor malls qualify as spam. I made substantial edits to the article Paradise Valley Mall which make it much more encyclopedic in tone than the original.--Msr69er 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is still not a directory. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the guideline on directory entries, I would assert that the entire classification of shopping centers, if this guideline were to be strictly applied across the board, may indeed be considered inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. I am a relatively new Wikipedian so I'm still learning the rules. There should be a long and hard debate on this as it would theoretically mean the deletion of dozens upon dozens of well written individual articles on individual shopping centers, many of which denote places of strong and significant cultural, social and economic interest (along with major skyscrapers, sports stadiums, universities, government buildings such as the U.S. Capitol, etc.,) - and for such reason I would always argue for inclusion. Again I assert that the shopping center category is completely appropriate for coverage on Misplaced Pages, but if it is not, what would make that category appropriate at all? Let's have a debate among Wikipedians on it. Where do I start?--Msr69er 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you say on the deletion review page that "the primary notability criterion (for appropriateness as an encyclopedia article)...is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". The Arizona malls have been extensively coverered for decades in local media (newspapers and locally produced magazines), and are considered a vital part of the regional economy. Would the remedy for reinstatement simply be the inclusion of more footnotes?--Msr69er 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of it is trivial. How many books are there on any of these malls? Guy (Help!) 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not many scholarly books exist on individual malls (that I am aware of), but rather on the mall phenomenon as a whole. "Reliable secondary sources" would need to lean heavily on the local newspapers. It sounds, from your assertions and policy citiations, as though Misplaced Pages is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. I would still disagree on the grounds I argued, but if those are the rules, then certainly I must abide by them, but if you speedy delete the articles I have questioned, you must do the same to about 75% of the rest in the interest of fairness. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted, and you have quite a workload ahead. Is there a place where such announcements are made to all editors? Can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?--Msr69er 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thig is, if the mall phenomenon is notable (which it is), then we have an article on shopping mall. The fact of the concept being notable does not confer notability on all or specific examples of that phenomenon. I have no problem at all with userfying for transwiki, my main concern here was what I can only see as a spamming campaign (and no, you are not a spammer). A newspaper story on the opening of a mall is pretty small beer - local newspapers will carry articles on the opening of an envelope if it's a slow news day. As to the rules, it's only my interpretation of the rules, and then only in this specific instance. So do please open a wider discussion at the Village Pump or somewhere, it would be good to have a bit of clarity. Please, though, let's have an end to the mall directory entries. An article on a generic mall which states its opening date and location and lists the anchor stores really is not an encyclopaedia article, to my understanding. I have no problem with articles on genuinely notable malls. Ones which break new ground (in the objectively verifiable sense, not the marketing bullshit sense, of course), ones which have changed the landscape by turning a poor town into a prosperous one, that kind of thing. Anything, really, as long as it's a substantive and verifiable claim to notability beyond mere existence. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sharkface217 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Images, malls

Image:Gurnee Mills wide.jpg and Image:Gurnee Mills.jpg were speedy deleted... was there a licensing issue on these? I can provide the original 6MP files with timestamps that match the original upload times, and other information that shows they came from my camera. Also, both were deleted with the comment that they were orphaned, though both are still in use, the first by Mills Corporation, the second by Gurnee, Illinois. Since they're in use, and don't fall under CSD-I3, I've restored them.

As an aside, it was clear that Dvac (talk · contribs) was some sort of spammer. Gurnee Mills could have been much better sourced, so I won't protest its deletion much. Though I would like to note that the article existed long before Dvac came around, and Dvac's edits were frequently reverted, and it was frustrating to try to communicate with them about unencyclopedic content, and it's unfortunate that the frustrating collaboration was repaid by having the article deleted just because they touched it at some point. (though, as I said, if a stub is eventually created again, it needs to be much better sourced, so I won't protest). --Interiot 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If a sourced article on the mall which demonstrates notability can be written, then I will undelete the images. I usually remove images on deleted articles that do not link elsewhere, just to keep the place tidy. Maybe that's wrong. Or maybe they did link elsewhere and I missed it. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the note mainly to mention that I've undeleted them already, because they are (and were at the time of deletion) in use by other pages. --Interiot 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks (I saw you undeleted these; there were others, hence the comment about undeleting). Sorry about that, the image link thing is not 100% reliable and neither am I - in the end it was probably my fault. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightly related to this:

Metrocenter Mall on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metrocenter Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Titoxd 19:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcomm

Just noticed that you were running. I'm really glad to hear that. Guettarda 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

oh my, and I am getting enough flak for the bumper stickers I already have. KillerChihuahua 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings!

Greetings, oh puppetmaster! . Do you suppose that ripping sound could be the guy from AMA tearing his hair out? Bishonen | talk 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I left a note on the AMA request - I think the poor advocate is going to have his work cut out with this one! Dear oh dear. That's two of my most disputations former sparring partners active at once, as well. What joy. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for your understanding, assistance and guidance. It is much appreciated.Dgray xplane 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki

Hello. First of all, I apologise for my earlier behaviour. I notice that why the issue is still subjudice at deletion review, User:Robert Buzink has created a "new" GetWiki article. I want to emphasize that there was no collusion whatsoever between Robert Buzink and me - I'm just letting you know what I noticed. David Cannon 10:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)

You deleted Willowbrook Mall at 00:03 on November 24, citing CSD G11 spam. I disagree. The article was informative. Please restore and nominate it for deletion so it can go through a discussion. Thanks. Clipper471 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Shops at La Cantera

You deleted The Shops at La Cantera at 00:01 on November 24, citing CSD G11 spam. Please restore and nominate it with Afd so it can go through a discussion. Thanks. Clipper471 15:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)