Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:03, 21 January 2007

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-Dec-2006 /Archive-Jan-2007 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.

Terms of Service
By posting on this page you accept the JzG Terms of Service. I endeavour to satisfy good-faith requests to the best of my ability, but if you act like a dick, I will call you a dick. If you act like a troll, I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off. If you want something from me, your best bet is not to demand it on pain of shopping me to ArbCom, because that way is pretty much guaranteed to piss me off to the extent that I will do whatever I can to thwart your plans. 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. I can be provoked, it's not even terribly difficult. You may find, if you provoke me enough, that I will do something I later regret. Only remember, you may regret it more. I am a middle-aged surly bastard who spends their working day wrestling spammers and beating Windows with a stick, but I am capable of seeing good in the most improbable people if they don't go out of their way to make me do otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This user posts using a British sense of humour and does not repress those instantenous motions of merriment.

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

Happy New Year!

To-do

List of episodes for The Nick Cannon Show - dozens of one line articles need merging into the list. Shw cancelled due to low ratings, unlikely that there will ever be sufficient interest to justify articles on every episode.

Bose headphones

Hello. I have nominated Bose headphones for deletion. I noticed you started the original AFD and thought you might be interested in following the second one. —ptk✰fgs 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I used such headphones a few years ago. They worked, but hissed a bit. In the meantime, many manufacturers sell headphones using the same principle, so the article should be called Acoustic cancellation headphones or something --Theosch 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Chirstianty

First of all not my band and secondly you guys are topic nazi on here I mean actually make this place appealing to everyone.

FYI

This shows you have 7073 edits to main spaces. If you wish to have more information check out this link which gives you the chance to opt in for more details by adding a code. That same program indicates that you have 25496 edits. There is however a problem when I used Flcelloguys_Tool_5_00 from WP:COUNT, it only goes up to 15000 edits and max's out. Similarly this wannabe kate program says you have 27201. (and give everyone the chance to see what you edit). You appear to be avraging 2000 edits per month. With approx. 30 days a month and approx 24 hours in day - your work time (lets say 7 hours) - sleep time (7 hours) = 10 hours. Within one month you should have approx. 300 hours of leasure time. If we divide that by the amount of edits... 2000 edits/ 300 hours... = 6.66 edits/ per hour. Furthermore, your first edit was the 6th of January 06, at 6:16 p.m.... (spooky)... 666 is referred to as the Number of the Beast in the Book of the Revelation (see Revelation 13:17–18)... On your title page you have a comment that says "beware of tigers"! (a beast). That means your edits are somehow linked with this evil. Some perceive it as the "Devils Number". Given my Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, I think I've seen this in a movie once... everyone died. (Just kidding). But interesting to know, no? Maybe it's time we take a wiki break! Have a safe trip! --CyclePat 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've already looked at most of them, the wannabe kate's tool takes a very long time to count all my edits. However, modern scholarship shows that the number of the beast in the original sources is actually 616. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Wow! That makes it all the more spookier and ironic given the time of registration. Humm... I just hope you're not flying on a Boeing 707 version 3... (that would be too weird given the amount of edits you have is 7073 to main spaces. If you're supperstitious I'dd stay away from wikipedia while on the flight! (turning into some Stephen King Thriller) Humm... anyway, (in a serious tone) keep up all the good work... (sarcastically) You little devil!! --CyclePat 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Motorized bicycle

I noticed you removed reference to Series Hybrid Cycle. Did you delete this page as well? That page appear to have been quite informative as this backup demonstrates... . Can you please undelete the Series Hybrid Cycle. Thank you! --CyclePat 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I checked it out twice, once when it first appeared and again now. The only reference for this term appears to be Andreas Fuchs , and the article was created by FuchsA (talk · contribs) who has no other contributions. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I am no brainiack here, but given the backup version available here and my extensive research in "electric bicycles", it actually appears that this was the begining of an article that can be called electric bicycle. Given the many references that exist for electric bicycles, I would suggest that the information be dropped within the electric bicycle, the motorized bicycle talk page, or maybe a sub-user page user:CyclePat/hybrid serie cycles. I would be happy to find more sources for the article and include the information within motorized bicycle article or electric bicycle(or the book I'm writting). We know according to the backup that there where some good sources in that article concerning electric bicycle. Given the nature of our past conflicts concerning the merger of power-assisted bicycles, electric bicycles, or almost anything talking about electric bicycles having it's own article seperate from motorized bicycle, I think it would be a good idea to, if you did delete it, that perhaps you could undelete (in one of the afformentioned methodes). Again, though perhaps not notable (only 2 pages in google search) (and one page if searched in the singular form) the information on that page had some interest for the developement of electric bicycle article or at least the electric bicycle section of motorized bicycle. (I do agree that the term is however rare in my region, and that the article didn't have all citations!) Thank you! --CyclePat 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Electric bicycle is a redirect and that's just fine. That article was one man's name for one man's research. If I thought there were more sources I'd have done something other than nuke it! Guy (Help!) 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm a personal friend of the author Andreas Fuchs and know his projects. I think his work should be included somewhere in Misplaced Pages. I agree that his article was perhaps a bit too extensive for Misplaced Pages, considering the specialist nature and I think the name of the article was somewhat misleading, so I'm not unhappy at the deletion, Guy. However I'll try to work with Andreas to create a shorter version under a better name or put some of the infomation into chainless bicycle or hybrid-electric bicycle, which is still a stub. I also think there should perhaps be a separate article called Electric bicycle, which is not a redirect into Motorized bicycle, which has a lot of combustion-engine related stuff. Of course, we could call the new article Electric cycle, because many vehicles are actually tricycles. I've only joined Misplaced Pages recently, but I'm a specialist in lightweight electric vehicles and hope to find time to help out in this field. I notice that you and CyclePat above have had some edit wars together but seem reconciled, so please point out to me if any newbie blunders of mine threaten to cause a flare-up again. --Theosch 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • In the meantime, I've pretty much rewritten Hybrid-electric bicycle, putting in some of the info from the previous Series hybrid cycles and added more references and links. Not perfect yet, but what do you think so far, Guy and CyclePat? --Theosch 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

Hey, Guy, I'm sure you're as swamped as I am - do you have time to peek at Talk:Ernest Emerson? I may be missing something. I first encountered the (well-meaning, productive) main editor when I peer reviewed the article. I satisfied myself that notability was well met (read the sources), but he is having issues with another editor who is labeling the article as spam and deleting referenced text, after a lot of hard work. I've encouraged the other editor to come to the talk page, and I don't think referenced text about a notable person/company is necessarily spam, but since the main editor is hard at work, another set of eyes could really help here. Maybe I'm wrong. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Progress here on Jeffpw's page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's a good article, for sure. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guy! I was wondering if you could take a look at it again when you have a spare moment. I ommitted non essential elements of the EKI article and moved the important stuff into the Ernest Emerson article. I think it's actually a bit better now thanks to this reccomendation. Hopefully it will calm down the guy who thinks it's spam...but I'm sure he'll be back with a new objection. --Mike Searson 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

The following was on my talk page. I figure you can probably help him/her more than I can. PatriotBible 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Several bogus institutions from India have been using Misplaced Pages to promote themselves. None of them has government accreditation. However, their promoters are repeatedly reverting my edits and projecting these bogus institutions and diploma mills as genuine. These are:

• South Asia Theological Research Institute
• Serampore College
• Andhra Christian Theological College
• Gurukul Lutheran Theological College
• Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary

Of these, the Serampore College is a bogus theological University and diploma mill. It has never been accredited by the University Grants Commission or other government accrediting agencies in India.

Noticing your stand against diploma mills and bogus institutions, I request your help in keeping an eye on them. The Hermes 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely. I am currently jetlagged and won't be able to tackle this until this afternoon (GMT) but I will look at it. Please also consider letting FeloniousMonk know about this. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOUP

Thanks. I needed that. —Cryptic 14:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I love it when someone puts there finger on a problem as precisely and as concisely as that. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DOI.net

Your removal of every single DOI.net link on Misplaced Pages constitutes nothing short of vandalism and will continue to be reverted on sight being that DOI.net meets WP:rS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.138.41.183 (talk • contribs)

Speaking of which...Anon IP adding the links to DOI that you removed , and . Regards. One Night In Hackney 16:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Indeed. It is User:JB196 again. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. GaryGoingggg also re-inserted the link on the Tommy Dreamer article immediately before the IP started editing, and GaryGoingggg is another suspected sock of JB196, further details here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust... Guy (Help!) 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for CR Mediation comment

Thanks so much for comment in the CR Paganism Mediation case. I was beginning to get a serious flash of Kafka or that my sense of communal reality was slipping badly. I just wish I had thought to decline this mediation until the end of the arbitration first rather than trying to explain things. I have this archaic notion that communicating clearly, honestly, and thoroughly helps resolve situations. It didn't occur to me that someone coming in cold to the situation might not understand or look carefully at the links provided. I might be stuck in an Arbitration state of mind around the issue, though, where everything needs to be presented as "evidence". Anyway, thanks again. --Pigman 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem, I think they are trying to tie you up in knots. One meta-case at a time is quite enough. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you very much, Guy. I, too, was getting a serious dose of the surreal. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to comment. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For dealing with the JB196 situation. Can I get some input here please? See my comments for the reasoning. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email, g.c@spamcop.net for subj: Ackoz / Azmoc aftermath --66.58.130.56 13:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I replied by mail. You need WP:OVERSIGHT, I would break more than you could imagine if I tried to fix that. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

Several bogus institutions from India have been using Misplaced Pages to promote themselves. None of them has government accreditation. However, their promoters are repeatedly reverting my edits and projecting these bogus institutions and diploma mills as genuine. These are:

• South Asia Theological Research Institute
• Serampore College
• Andhra Christian Theological College
• Gurukul Lutheran Theological College
• Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary

Of these, the Serampore College is a bogus theological University and diploma mill. It has never been accredited by the University Grants Commission or other government accrediting agencies in India. Noticing your stand against diploma mills and bogus institutions, I request your help in keeping an eye on them.

They are simply reverting my posts about this Fake University without furnishing proof. The Hermes 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your unbiased opinion

I am asking your opinion because you and I usually disagree on the few articles to which we both contribute, and so I think others will trust your opinion if you happen to agree with me. There is a WP:BLP that I have contributed to and still watch on Sarah_Shahi. There have been many things done to the article which I feel do harm to the article's significance, so much so that I have given up contributing. I believe that the Talk was archived in bad faith to hide the previous discussions, and I want to know if you agree with that assessment.

In my opinion, the Talk was not unusually long and was not difficult to navigate. The person who archived the Talk has since been permanently blocked from editing WP. The user's own talk page has repeatedly been deleted or blanked by the user, also in my opinion to hide the previous discussions.

If you agree with my assessment of the bad faith archival, how should I go about reverting the archival? I think the same changes discussed in the recent past continue to take place without the possible benefit of past debates and concensus.

By the way, I know you're busy, and this is a particularly low priority article. I will not be offended in any way if you are never able to find the time to review the situation or comment. At least the archive is always available.

--JJLatWiki 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's a reasonable request and no kind of distraction. I don't think it's necessary to rehash the debate by de-archiving, sometimes a fresh start is good. If you have cited facts you should feel free to put them in and if a new sock pops up then I can play whack-a-mole with the best of them. Obviously rumour and trivia are questionable even if they are not defamatory, but the idea that trivia is defamatory unless sourced from IMDB is completely absurd - IMDB is not actually that reliable anyway. Interviews and profiles in magazines and books are the best source. What does Halliwell say, I wonder? Anyway, I would say you can safely ignore Technajunky and his hosiery drawer, and I removed the copyright comment from the image tag because it's complete bollocks, iff a credible argument can be made that a fair use image is not replaceable then it can go in. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good point about the "fresh start". I wish the purpose for the archival had been for that reason or to keep the talk page reasonably sized, but I will leave it as is and see what happens next. Unless it is outrageous, I don't pay close attention to actor articles. Beside, that article is among a group that I think are being monitored and protected by a particular cabal that I just don't have the time to fight for this article. I couldn't agree more about IMDB. Obviously I disagreed with Technajunky about what was too trivial for such an article, but his methods were extremely agressive. --JJLatWiki 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A small request...

I noticed you recently contributed to the article Derek Smart. I was wondering if you would be able to revert an edit that was done a very short time before the article was previously protected. The edit was agreed by the majority of contributers to be from a non-neutral POV, and only serves to spread non-verified hearsay into the article in an effort to make the subject appear to be especially irrational. As this is a biography of a living person, I think that it would be best to comment it out to be on the safe side. I am contacting you because you seem to have taken the most recent interest in this article, and you are able to make edits on the level of an admin.

Thank you, in any case, for your consideration. Mael-Num 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unlikely. That discussion is so obscured by the strewings form Smart's hosiery drawer as to make any realistic attempt to assess consensus futile. You might have more luck with User:Phil Sandifer, who is better informed on gaming than I am (and, unlike me, actually cares about it). Guy (Help!) 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take an intimate understanding of gaming to see what's going on here. The question is, is it important to a biography of Derek Smart to reprint the claim by some that he beat up a Coke machine? I think it's kinda silly, a bunch of other people think it's kinda silly. I mean, it makes a great story, but do you put it in an encyclopedia? I'm just asking you put back in the comment tags. You seemed to think it was important to keep the language in the article neutral, so it seemed natural to appeal to you to keep the information in the article pertinent and fair. Mael-Num 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So you say. But according to the RFAR, you are either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Derek Smart, so why would I take your word for it, or that of any of the other single-purpose accounts for that matter. Like I said, take it to someone like Phil who actually cares. Me, I have very limited patience for usenet trolls trying to use Misplaced Pages to airbrush their public persona. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is true that the RFAR has found me to be a puppet of any kind of Derek Smart, then I'm afraid that the RFAR must be some of the worst detectives on the planet. Unless an IP check has been done on me, and proved that I resolve to the same (or nearly the same) IP as the others, there's no evidence of that claim. Also, if you check my edits, you'll see I'm no fan of Smart, or whitewashing the truth. I also don't write anything like those other fellows (fellow?). So, given that conclusion (that I'm a puppet) in the absence of any real evidence, I'd say there's more than reasonable doubt of my innocence.

All that aside, if you'd prefer not to make that edit, or you don't see my point about the reason the change, or you choose not to see relevance of the straw vote that agreed it was inappropriate, then that's your preference and your position, and I don't blame you for having it. Thank you all the same for your time and consideration. Cheers. Mael-Num 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And, uh, now that you mention it...I can see where this whole Derek Smart puppet-thing is starting to make me look bad. I mean, you don't know me from Adam, and your first impression of me is that I'm a puppet. If I am, as I say, some completely different guy, you might see how that's a bummer. How would you suggest I go about clearing my name? Mael-Num 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just noticed this discussion I think I should say that during the few weeks since the start of the RFAr, I've decided that Mael-Num probably isn't one of Derek Smart's accounts. At the time of writing my initial statement, the only time Mael-Num had edited was during a two week period while Supreme Cmdr was blocked (Supreme Cmdr evades blocks on his main account like mad, so I don't think this was an irrational assumption to make), but my opinion changed after reading sensible edits made by him (her?) on the RFAr (which is the opposite of what we get from Smart).
As for this coke machine bit in the Derek Smart article itself, I think our time would be better spent on the RFAr than re-starting the dispute over the article's content. There will be plenty of time (in relative peace and quiet) after the arbitration case has ended to discuss what bits have consensus and what bits don't. -- Steel 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for offering your input, as I know you're very familiar with what's going on. I also really appreciate your speaking up for the likelihood that I'm not someone else (and just FYI, I be a he). My only concern was that, in the time that this information stays up, anyone who casually stops by wondering "Who is this Derek Smart guy?" might read the article and conclude "He attacks soda machines, and therefore must be nuts". All in all, it's not like that story hasn't already gotten around, and I respect your position that it is best to wait until the RFAR is concluded.

Thanks again, to both of you, for addressing my concerns. I feel much better about the whole situation. Mael-Num 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,. Steel. The text is not defamatory, so there is no pressing need to change it, waiting until the dust settles first sounds like good advice. Mael-Num, the best way to clear your name is simply to improve the encyclopaedia - the more articles unrelated to Smart that you edit and improve, the more it will become apparent that you are your own man :-) Guy (Help!) 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion on WP:AN

Hey there. In response to your comment about my thoughts on the RfC system, I'm going to try and write up a vague outline of my idea tomorrow afternoon, and post it as a subpage when I've got it formed. I think that'd be a good starting point. Would you like me to let you know when it's up and ready for thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, please. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a writeup placed on my sandbox page; feel free to take a blunt object to it if you like. I think I've got all the key bits I wanted to convey in there, anyhow. Basically, I think it's an opportunity to provide some needed closure as well as organization to the process. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas on your changes so far; the additional clerk duties are good additions. I like the second summary style as well; my sample was mostly to indicate how a summary could be done to ensure that all of the viewpoints involved were represented. I've removed all the references to the actual case, as well. Needs some polishing, still. What are your overall thoughts on the idea so far? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The overall idea is sound, but we should not make the process legalistic. It's designed to cut the crap not increase it. Adding summaries of the views in the dispute shuld be optional, for use when the views themselves ramble (and actually clerks should be getting people to keep their statements to under 500 words anyweay, as per ArbCom). If agreement can't be reached in a week or two it's probably never going to be reached, arbitration or mediation comes next. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed completely. I've made a few more minor tweaks and clarified that it's not intended to be bureaucratic, but more of a secondary assistance. See if I've done anything to bugger it up, please, and if you feel there's anything else that should be adjusted, please feel free. After that, I'll move it to its own subpage and post a note on the Proposals page to get some discussion going with other people. (I think that's the right route to go, anyhow... first time I've done this, so it's a learning experience.) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My offer to Ilena

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

CDH

I thought It was probabaly going to diverge on the noticebaord, so I brought t here :)

The shortest article I can conceive of is "The following bunch of lamebrains and weirdos think the WTC buildings were brought down by a massive conspiracy rather than a handful of terrorists with aircraft.", but I suspect that is a little too POV ;)

It is getting shorter. It's way too long, but those who are working hard inside it seem to be cutting rather than adding. The only other solution would be to content fork the various sections, but imagine the bunting and frolics that would cause.

At least most of the tone is now NPOV, and pretty much all claims are cited. It shoudl certainly never say "thsi is right" or "this is wrong", but leave any reader able to make an educated decision.

I'm more, I think, of an interested bystander. I have peripheral expertise only and tend to stand back and criticise the article rather than write any of it. Fiddle Faddle 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• :o) I think the suggestion was that the theory has been propounded by foo and bar (Jones and whoever) but lacks any mainstream support and has not been accepted for publication by any reputable peer-reviewed journal. It's not necessary to actually say that it is the work of deluded individuals clutching at straws to support a world-view that directly contradicts the available evidence and violates Occam's Razor into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's always struck me as rather odd that there are two armed camps. The one camp looks at the article and says "The article must go because nothing must interfere with my nation's judgement about terrorists" and the other says "You are deluded if you believe the government view. The article must show how wrong the government is". How fortunate that we have consensus politics here that recognise that an article should exist, and are simply trying to shape the one we have into the one that deserves its place :) Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. I am certainly no supporter of Shrub, the idea that we must support him because he is a "war president" in a war he himself declared (and post-facto at that) has always struck me as contemptible, but when looking for explanations as to why the buildings went down, being hit by sixty tons of aircraft fully loaded with a few thousand gallons of kerosene which promptly caught fire does look, on the face of it, to be a plausible enough explanation that looking under the carpets for explosive residues is probably unnecessary. Even more than the Roswell business, I am struck by the fact that this conspiracy theory requires the involvement of very large numbers of people, none of whom have so much as whispered a word of it. Ask Richard Nixon about the real-world likelihood of a completely leak-free conspiracy, particularly where politics is involved. Add to that the fact that it would require an almost total absence of conscience to wilfully detonate explosives in a building full of people and you raise a very high burden of proof on those who propose the theory. Thus far the limit of their proof appears to be "well, you can't conclusively prove it didn't happen", and that assertion is itself based on the fact that any evidence or proof advanced by any agency that does not accept or support the hypothesis is rejected out of hand simply on that basis. It's rather like Kent Hovind rejecting any evidence for evolution on the basis that it contradicts his interpretation of the Bible, and then asserting that this in and of itself means that creationism is proven as literally true. We know these people are deluded, and we sure as hell should not be helping them to make their case, but that doesn't stop us documenting the phenomenon. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the conditions which must apply for the CDH to eb true are, to my mind:

• The Gubmint decides that it is worth killing thousands of US citizens to rpovoke a war
• They decide that running airliners into the World Trade Center would be a more effective way of doing this than, say, a fake-terrorist bomb blast at the Superbowl (which would probably be a lot easier to arrange)
• They find enough people with expertise in controlled demolition of extremely large buildings that they can build a big enough team without worrying that a single member will ever breathe a word
• They manage to get the explosives into the building past the tenants' floor security (and remember, these are banks)
• They find some people who are prepared to commit suicide in the cause of killing American citizens and provoking a war with Iraq, train them to fly and get them on the planes
• They crash the planes into the buildings, detonate the explosives and then arrange for the President to appear to be completely callous by failing to take it seriously (lovely piece of rverse psychology there)
• They manage to dupe every single structural engineer and demolition specialist who visited Ground Zero (or maybe they are all in on the conspiracy as well?)

The alternative, prosaic explanation is:

• Terorrists decided to attack the States and hatched the plan of flying airliners into the towers
• They managed just that
• The plan succeeded better than they could have dreamed, because not only did the uildings get wiped off the face of the earth, a bunch of people actually started mad theories about how is was all the work of the Evil Gubmint.

It will be readily apparent which view I prefer. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is easy. Obviously you are 100% with the conspiracy theorists. Otherwise you would not argue against them. I claim Lady Macbeth Fiddle Faddle 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are Oolon Colluphid and I claim my five pounds :o) Guy (Help!) 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that Lobby Lud? Look, here's sixpence! It's bright and shiny, and you can get six pennyworth of chips all wrapped in the Westmister Gazette Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See Babel fish :-) Guy (Help!) 15:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I surrender. I looked. Either it is not there or I missed it Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The bit about proving that black is white and then getting killed on the next zebra crossing. You probably have to be in my head for it to make sense. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not at all strange, are you. It's good to meet another ordinary person. I am forced to say "Wibble". Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bah! I'm completely hatstand, me. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintila RfC

Is this issue resolved? If so I will archive the RfC. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's resolved for me. Which is to say, all I wanted was a clear denial. Whether it is resolved for Dahn is up to him to say. - Jmabel | Talk 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I guess that, since he denied it and did not object to the changes in text (although he failed to tell us where he had gotten the references from, leading to phrases being unreferenced), the issue could be closed. As far as I am concerned, if he has copied and this is evidenced, or if he will be caught copying, his recorded denial will be evidence of bad faith. So, yes. Dahn 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bootleg albums are by nature almost without exception undocumentable per policy"

Hi... I know noting about the specific albums you were talking about, but I must take exception to this general statement. This excellent book talks about several noteworthy, historic bootlegs, such as The Beatles' Get Back and Dylan's Royal Albert Hall. —Chowbok ☠ 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The exceptions that prove the rule. The vast majority, almost all, are not formally verifiable. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

JB196's link spam blacklisted?

I saw that DOI had been blacklisted, but this diff suggests otherwise. Does it take a while to come into effect? He's also trying to link to a forum posting of his "book", see here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be back on a new IP . Also he seems to be linking to the DOI site through a different domain name as well *link removed*. One Night In Hackney 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And another sock. If you check the end of the edit on this diff he's adding the DOI link using proxy forwarding. One Night In Hackney 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, proxy taken to spam blacklist requests. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The more cynical would suggest Slipup21 is a JB196 sock as well. I can't provide diffs due to the spam blacklist, but if you look at the history of Tommy Dreamer. Anon IP edits at 02:32, then Slipup21 edits at 02:36. Similarly with XPW. On the 16th anon IP edits at 03:40, then Slipup21 edits at 03:42. Same again on the 17th, anon IP edits at 02:34 then Slipup21 edits at 02:36. Apart from their user page, the only edits Slipup21 has made were to those two articles at the exact same time as the anon IPs. I'm also thinking Pipperskipper is a sock for similar reasons, only editing articles the anon IPs were inserting links to at the same time. Seems like he's using multiple throwaway accounts now. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

His achievements to date include getting DOI, a favourite site of his, blacklisted, and identifying a couple of proixies which are now blacklisted as well, which might almost count as a service to the project :-) Guy (Help!) 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How very nice of him :) I'm thinking www.clandrake.org might need to be blacklisted for similar reasons, he tried adding a link using it which didn't seem to work, but it does look like the type of site that needs blacklisting. One Night In Hackney 13:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BrickFlim.gif

Congratulations! You are in the credits of our movie. Good job Guy. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. I am commited not to disappoint the all those who have shown good faith and kindness to me. nobs 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Help! Am I being threatened

Kindly come to my talk page where it seems an editor seems to be threatening me for stating the facts. Misplaced Pages is known for exposing Diploma mills and bogus universities. This is exactly what I have done, and now I am being attacked for that. Please check the bottom section of the talk page The Hermes 07:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also could you look at Institute for Creation Research. A user is removing detailed history and messing with the criticism section that demonstrates their claims are based on premodern science. PatriotBible 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a sock puppet? That user has only editted two articles? PatriotBible 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Another admitted sock puppet. I worked with your edits. If you don't want anyone to touch anything you write, then you don't understand the concept of wikipedia. You, on the other hand, blatantly reverted all of my work without comment, even the areas that didn't touch on your additions. He wrote "his work" and "I worked with your edits." A look at user history shows that account didn't edit that article.

This user is trying to white wash this group's history and limit criticisms. PatriotBible 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Earsed his talk pages. PatriotBible 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am currently at a loss on the best way to deal with this user. He seems to come to you with anything that bothers him, so perhaps you have insight that I lack. I felt that rather than be confused with being a separate user contributing to the ICR article, that it was appropriate for me to show I was already an anon IP poster on the article before using my actual login, and this is the course of action I took. Also, concensus editing from PatriotBible at this point seems to be not allowing any alterations to information he adds and doing complete reverts to all changes done by any user who touches his edits, even in areas where his edits were not affected. At least this has been my experience. As this is probably not the best way for wikipedia to operate, I have been at a bit of a loss on how to proceed. I am hoping that by writing this to you that it might work itself out. If that is the case, then thank you in advance for allowing me to express myself. Cheers Bbagot 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

More again. So this person is using three accounts to make changes. Bbagot, show who a list of self-publications is notable. I did not remove it, but I agree with its removal. You (and your sock puppets) are the only one who wants to keep it. PatriotBible 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements are not reality merely because you make them. Why don't you just say I'm 5 or 6 different people? It's equally as valid. I explained myself above. Bbagot 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

DekiWiki

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

Please unprotect this page, you speedied it as non-notable, news stories have since been provided on the talk page to establish notability. Try using google sometime. 88.107.120.90 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion review is down the hall on your left, but it was endorsed less than a fortnight ago so you will have a bit of an uphill battle. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the wrestling fans

This Afd seems to be going south very quickly. One Night In Hackney 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GRLWEAP

Guy - I understand your block of User:pdigrl, and your subsequent removal of the articles he created, but unless I'm mistaken, the GRLWEAP article had been cleaned up by myself and/or User:Basar to be somewhat non-spammy. Can you please restore that article (to User:Argyriou/GRLWEAP if necessary), at least back to the last edit by someone other than User:pdigrl? Thanks, Argyriou (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Hendry

The Paul Hendry article has been recreated once again, and the author is removing the speedy tag I've placed. Could you have a look please? Readro 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Theguywholikestoeditstuff

He just recreated the page again, I believe. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember RFA?

Hi Guy? Remember when I asked you some pretty tricky, biased and perhaps even compromisingly rude questions? I was wondering if you could return the favour here? Thank you! --CyclePat 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I failed miserably. --CyclePat 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Smart to withdraw before it becomes a bloodbath. Contact me via email if you want some critique. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pdigrl

I monitor the unblock list and Pdigrl (talk · contribs) is requesting an unblock. I left a message on that user's page indicating that she really needs to contact the blocking admin. I'm just giving you a heads-up. --Yamla 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cool. Let's watch and see what transpires. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Western University and WP:OFFICE action

Hello; I just reverted your rewrite on this article, with explanation on that talk page. Nice job with the citations and all that, but you need to follow the rules for getting the changes cleared with WMF if you are under a WP:OFFICE banner. I spent a healthy chunk of time on the phone with counsel dealing with this today. I would have liked to have known this was going to be the case.--Brad Patrick 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Brad, I took this up with Jimbo and he told me to go right ahead. What more am I supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that any further discussion of this miscommunication occur off-Wiki. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It already is. But there is a more serious problem here. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

offline

Until tomorrow at the earliest, ADSL outage in Reading. JzG 193.133.239.201 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion question

I'm curious about this deletion. I don't see how this was a speedy candidate...is one of the leading Barbados-based manufacturers of solar hot water systems in the Caribbean region is certainly an assertion of notability. The article creator seems very disenchanted with process here (e.g., he filed and then removed a DRV request, and is concerned about systematic bias. He's a solid and dedicated editor and one of the top 3 contributers to articles about the English-speaking Caribbean. If nothing else, it might be nice to explain what went on and why you consider the article to really have been a speedy candidate. Thanks. Guettarda 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Questionable call, I guess. I restored it, but I still think it looks spammy - namecheck for founder, no evidence of turnover etc. However, the prevalence of solar power in that region makes it more significant than I thought at the time. I'd AfD it as failing WP:CORP but I'm guessing that the creator could do with some Wikilove right now, so I'll leave it to you to decide what, if anything, to do. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guy - I appreciate it. Guettarda 18:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'd appreciate a third opinion at Talk:Brown people. You might like to swing past the AfD discussion page, too. Uncle G 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Someone seems to have lost their cool there. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help.

Dear JZG (GUY),

thank you for your reply in regard to the deletion of Matt Norman. I am a journalist who has taken a big interest in the story of this film-maker and also the subject matter of the film that he has made. Its a time in history that finally gets to be revealed to the World because the subject matter is the uncle of this film-maker. As you can see by doing a goodle/yahoo and Misplaced Pages search, there is a lot of information about the 1968 Games, Black Power Salute, Peter Norman etc. I think it's crucial to have the name of the film-maker who is about to change history in the way that this event actually happened. I have spoken with the film-maker about this and let him know that I would be putting information about this on Misplaced Pages. He and his company have agreed that I can look after that for me so I do have a connection with this story. I was hoping that finally I could get an administrator like yourself to help edit my last article so that at least people have a place to go? Is it possible for your help making sure that the right thing is written so that it doesn't keep getting deleted? I ask for your help. Filmnews2007 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Salute - The Peter Norman Story(film) -- you have to be kidding me.?

JzG,

C'mon you have to be kidding me. I ask that you please undelete this article that I spent hours doing. To say that it has no notability is wrong. Please search the web and tell me if you truly think that this is not a part of history that documents the truth of what happened during one of the most dramatic moments in history. The person that made this film is actually the nephew of Peter Norman. I am getting sick of re-writing these articles knowing that they are being added to Misplaced Pages purely for Historic study. I suggest you actually look over the links and do a little searching of your own to find the notability of this film. Hate to say this but if LA Times, Washington Post, New York Times, Fox Sports etc etc etc think that this is the most important sporting and history story of the past decade then why is it that you have deleted it??????? Enough is enough. Please re-instate this! I feel like i'm editing these pages full time because there are a few people as administrators that know nothing about this part of history and the importance it has on our world. Filmnews2007 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Where are the external sources? Guy (Help!) 09:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New message

I have responded to your comments on my usertalk page (Rfwoolf). In the spirit of open diplomacy, please respond in a civil manner as I have done on my usertalk page, in an attempt to keep the lines of dialog open.

You may -- at your discretion -- delete this message, as it is only to redirect you to my talk page. Rfwoolf 02:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been named in an RfArb

I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Talk page on Anal Stretching

Hi

I am positing the following question in compliance with wikipolicy:

1. Are you aware that I began to rewrite from scratch the article on Anal stretching on the talk page of Anal stretching (which took me several hours) which was in compliance with
   
   1. the Deletion Review of the article,
   2. the Proposal from User:Dfrg.msc in the Requests for Assistance,
   3. the comments/proposal of Yomangani, and
   4. your comments/proposals on Deletion Review , and
   5. the comments/proposals of Proto on Deletion Review and
   6. the comments/proposals of MangoJuice  ???
2. Are you aware the that talk page on Anal stretching was subsequently wiped (deleted) with its history hidden?
3. Were you responsible for the deletion of the contents of the talk page? If yes what was your reasoning, and why is the history hidden? If no, then do you know who did and where I can get the history?

1. * Enmdorse. If you can write a new article which includes references fro reliable sources and is not a how-to guide, go right ahead. This article was deleted for perfectly valid reasons by a deletion debate whose closure is also entirely valid. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
2. You want the article? Feel free to write an article that does not violate policy. Most of us couldn't care less whether we have an article on every minor bit of sexcruft on the planet, we just want the ones we do have to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Create the article in your user space, at User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching, ensuring that it is reliably sourced, and not a how to guide. Then show it to me or to any other admin. If the article is reliably sourced, asserts why the topic is notable, doesn't read like a how-to guide, and is encyclopaedic, then the article will be recreated. Proto::► 09:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Endorse deletion but allow recration through user space per Proto. I had argued it would be easier to improve the old article, but now I think the opposite -- if the old version is available, it won't change much, and it really needed to (and didn't have a lot of salvageable text in it). Mangojuice 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfwoolf 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)