Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:JzG Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:00, 11 April 2007 editTony Fox (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,644 edits ANI discussion you might find interesting← Previous edit Revision as of 17:49, 11 April 2007 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →ANI discussion you might find interesting: assistance?Next edit →
Line 295: Line 295:


Remember ]? ] looks an awful lot like his MO, but nobody commenting there has pointed that out yet. I'd make a note of it myself, but as you were involved with the guy earlier, I figured I'd make sure you saw it. Cheers. ] <small>]</small> 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Remember ]? ] looks an awful lot like his MO, but nobody commenting there has pointed that out yet. I'd make a note of it myself, but as you were involved with the guy earlier, I figured I'd make sure you saw it. Cheers. ] <small>]</small> 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

==Can you take a look?==

]. I would like references to myself removed as I find them inappropriate and demeaning. Can you assist? ] 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:49, 11 April 2007

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


Archive
Archives

archiving policy
privacy policy

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

  • "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
  • "The only thing necessary for the triumph of Misplaced Pages is for AOL to be rangeblocked." - Some other berk.
  • "I am your father" --Darth Nick to the trolls and vandals.
Read This First

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

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 his 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 instantaneous motions of merriment.


Pissed off

Just so people know, I am a teensy bit pissed off right now. I have been pretty vigorously attacked for removing the list of cars from cool wall, which I did because I could not see how reproducing in its entirety a list compiled by a copyright programme would be anything other than a violation of copyright, and it now seems that I am alone in thinking that the sandbox is for testing editing skills before going on to work on the encyclopaedia - seems it's actually the hosting provider for novel variants on word association, and not an editing test at all; my interpetation of consensus was in fact so far off-base that it didn't even justify a quick note on my Talk letting me know that the removal of the novel variants had been reverted. Which puts me in my place nicely. Seems that Misplaced Pages is MySpace after all! Perhaps I should go and sign up to an online encyclopaedia instead of a social network, since I do my social networking primarily with meatware. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you won't mistake the humour for lack of empathy, when I find I have to chuckle at your "meatware" comment : ) - jc37 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why is this image unfree? How can I know that? can you explain it to me please? can we use this image in another section in the preity page???? dondoniko

RfC on an editor you dealt with

There is currently a user RfC going on for User:Martinphi, at which he has disputed the removal of his advocacy comments (and again called them "vandalism"), insisted that his policy violations were justified and that he has done nothing wrong . Since you were the admin who removed his advocacy message, I thought you should know and be given the opportunity to respond to his comments. You have also been mentioned in the discussion and your comments quoted. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Martinphi --Minderbinder 14:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nominations

How long does it usually take before a decision is made, on whether or not an AfD gets deleted? Just curious. TenPoundHammer 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Borgman & Legge Sideshow

I keep running across refs to Borgman and Legge, their work (like The Deserter (2006 film)), Sideshow Cinema (and its internal spamming), Democrazy, and these guys' compatriots being inserted hither and yon (such as at Brussels International Festival of Contemporary Silent Film or here) by his number one fan Dwain (talk · contribs), whose response has been incoherent rants about conspiracy theories and vandalism. Bits and pieces of this vanity circus pop up on AFD, but I'm minded to collect everything into one place and AFD the lot, with (I hope) an unambiguous decision that everything needs to be cleared out once and for all. So, good idea, quixotic idea, or asking for trouble? --Calton | Talk 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nuke it. Borgman's vanity spamming has gone on long enough. The Sideshow Cinema article sucks so badly that no light can escape - a collection of non-notables, generally deleted, a blatant end-run around deletion process and positively loaded with spam. There might be a notable subject int here somewhere, but the list of nobodies has to go. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Melissa Guille

I'm a bit confused by your re-deletion of the Melissa Guille page. It may have been in need of improvement, but I thought it was mostly balanced and fair toward the subject.

Aren't Nizkor, the London Free Press and the Kitchener-Waterloo Record considered reliable sources? CJCurrie 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The reposted version was significantly worse than the deleted one. There are two organisations, the Heritage Front and the Canadian Heritage Alliance. The former appears to be a white supremacist group, but Guille asserts she was never a member and we have not seen a good source for her having been one, certainly not a leading member as is claimed. The Canadian Heritage Alliance is more or less legitimate, though somewhat distasteful. Most of what is thrown at Guille is guilt-by-association, and the sources mostly seem to boil down to one piece of investigative journalism. There are very clearly a number of people wanting to paint Guille as black as possible, and there are very few neutral sources to draw on, and those mainly in connection with the Canadian Heritage Alliance, so for now we should concentrate on rewriting that as something other than an attack piece on a number of barely-if-that notable individuals. If you are an OTRS volunteer I can give you the ticket number to review. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this response, for a number of reasons:

  • (i) The article didn't mention the Heritage Front, and I'm a bit uncertain as to why you'd bring up that organization now.
  • (ii) I'm not certain where you got the impression that the Canadian Heritage Alliance is "more or less legitimate", a view which seems to be contradicted by other reports into the matter. To judge from their website, they don't seem to be taking any great pains to conceal their far-right links.
  • (iii) Beyond this, I believe that the information in the revised Guille article was largely taken from reports in two credible, mainstream newspapers, one of which was sourced to the local police. I'm not certain where your comment about "one piece of investigative journalism" is coming from.

Could I please request that you review your decision on this matter? CJCurrie 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Kirsten Powers:

You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We are in dire need of sanity

Wikipedia_talk:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. Please take a look. >Radiant< 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

JzG... you surprise me considering you are not on the talk page about this. Your move is not proper considering the article is protected. (→Netscott) 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO the best qualification for judging it is precisely that: not being on the talk page. I am not vested in either camp. It was clearly a unilateral move lacking prior consensus, WP:BRD applies. You were bold, that is now reverted, please discuss. Only please, please stop the sniping between you and Radiant!, you should both know better. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've made a post on WP:AN this is improper. WP:BRD does not apply to protected pages and adminstrators utilizing their tools particularly when summoned by one of the conflicting parties to do so. (→Netscott) 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Feh. I don't really care that much either way, to be honest, but I think we should take it a step at a time and get agreement first. Good to retain your sense of humour about it, though :-) Guy (Help!) 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You Stop It

This is the second time I have taken an unprovoked tongue lashing from you and I am tired of it. How dare you accuse me of promoting a film! Because someone edits an article about an independent film, it's promotion? Because I fight against an administrator who disregards Misplaced Pages's own policies and who refuses to either discuss his actions or follow proper procedure I'm a promoter? You have a nerve. Your actions which have not followed Misplaced Pages's procedures are questionable at the least and offensive at the most. I am not the one doing anything wrong and I demand an apology. Dwain 14:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking policy

When you say harassment, what section are you talking about on the policy? Or do you mean this belongs in another? Thanks Guy! :) - Denny 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. My placement sucked. - Denny 20:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really, but you should probably have looked at where it would fit and what tone to use before posting. I still think it's a special case of harassment and probably better elsewhere, but harassment is not in WP:BP yet, and it probably should be. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Duke rape case

(In response to your post in the Admin noticeboard) -- Yes, they should be merged, and probably Mike Nifong too. But beware of what you're getting into. Every article related to the Duke rape scandal (2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, Mike Nifong, the accuser, maybe others?) is heavily POV toward the defendants. It's ridiculously bad - They read like indictments, listing out endless trivial points condemning the accuser, the prosecutor, the police, faculty who criticized the players, the case, etc. The main article is much too long. Many edits are by users named Blue*, Duke*, etc. They blatantly, aggressively push their POV (just read the Discussion pages). I've tried to moderate it a little, and even added an NPOV tag to the Mike Nifong page, but I simply don't have the time for it. The main article needs a NPOV tag too. It's an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages, seeing it hijacked by one side of an issue. Guanxi 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh bugger, just what I need - another snow job perpetrated by jocks with too much time on their hands. It is so tempting just to hit "delete" sometimes... Guy (Help!) 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Question Guy

On the Bruce Mcmahan page you've been keeping an eye on, what about using the cort documents as a source? nothing inflammatory, just a simple "according to court documents, x accused y of z, z denied these claims"? Would this be an acceptable way to source it?-M 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Very great care is needed in working from original court sources - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu for example. I suspect that article should probably just be nuked, pretty much all the external coverage is reprinted from the same source, which very obviously has an agenda in this case. If it were a member of the Kennedy clan it might be different, but I doubt most people would know guy if he bit them on the nose. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for being bold and doing the right thing. MastCell 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Which, of course, is promptly being undone. MastCell 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Little rouge book.jpg

You might wanna head on over there. No sense in giving you the default template. --Iamunknown 06:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I know I'm acting like a dick and a troll now, but the image is fair use and cannot be used on Misplaced Pages unless it meets the fair use criteria. It should be removed from the non-main namespace. --Iamunknown 17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I know what you are doing and why. This is just one of the very rare cases where I think that copyright paranoia is not justified. Normally I am 100% in favour of deleting anything where copyright is anything other than unambiguous, and no it's not suitable for GFDL, that's my bad, but it is fair use parody, I think, and the context is not actually that important for that - mainspace is essential for fair use no free alternative illustrating the subject, but parody can be anywhere. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In follow up, if you feel rogueish enough to use it anyways, meh. I don't know, however, how you know what I am doing and why. You may be interested to know that my initial disclaimer was based on your threatening note at the top of the talk page that "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." You may not be very experienced with image-related stuff, but I have some experience and am regularly called off, so such a note is unwarranted and threatening. Whatever, Iamunknown 00:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Look through my archives and the edit history of this page, mate. I get an awful lot of trolling here. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

long overdue

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Few have done more to help protect Misplaced Pages and its editors. MONGO 12:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:N

Hi, Please read through the talk page at WP:N and look at the history going back to February 07. This page has been stabilized through compromise to recognize the possibility that a single source could establish notability which is different from a single source being the only reference. Only in the last couple of days has there been a renewed and more supported backlash against what has been relatively stable.

I'm trying to find a middle ground which acknowledges the possibility of the single argument, but substantially admonishes against it. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 15:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Barber

I know you're tired of reading about him, but is it time to try to find his home ISP and fire off a WP:ABUSE report? KUTGW (keep up the Good Work) btw. SirFozzie 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the one who created it, after running into him several million times on wrestling articles previously. Just was wondering if he might have switched ISP accounts (probably can't tell from all the accounts he's created, open proxies up the wazoo). Will head over to ABUSE then. SirFozzie 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The way to deal with Barber is WP:RBI. I said to Eagle 101 that if he posts any more spurious abuse reports at the SBL talk we should simply delete them and block the account used to post them. Few valid spam reports come from users who are not self-identified as Misplaced Pages users of one language or another with substantial edit histories. Barber wants drama. We want him to fuck off. If we simply WP:RBI every time his head pops up, he will eventually become bored. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see WP:Abuse handles IP's only, anyway. Have a good evening. SirFozzie 17:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Getting ridiculous now. One Night In Hackney303 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Common sense has prevailed, see here and here. One Night In Hackney303 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Himalayan Academy

Hello JzG! I am User: Himalayan Academy. Even though I will be mostly mnaging issues related to my institution, I will be the only one using this account. So I'll change it to something more personal. I was not aware of the policy. Thank you! Natha

Trout

Hello - sorry to bother you, but if you have the time and a free trout, your continued help might be useful here. MastCell 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego/Sandstein

I would like to see a response from you here. --Random832 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

peswiki

Heavy applause for slashing the PESwiki links. It's a somewhat easier case in this instance, as Wikis are discouraged links anyway. I'm unclear whether it is wise to go after other notorious free energy site:

http://www.cheniere.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.cheniere.org
http://jnaudin.free.fr
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=jnaudin.free.fr
http://www.rexresearch.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.rexresearch.com

Pjacobi 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • My own personal test is, do we, by linking to such a site, effectively create an offsite POV fork? Are these pages predominantly designed to "correct" the neutral point of view presented here? I know that's a controversial view. I certainly would want to challenge any use of these sites as sources, especially since a lot of the use as sources looks suspiciously like finding a gratuitous fact that can be linked to get traffic to the site. Also, the onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify its inclusion, so in questionable cases rremoving it and taking it to Talk is a good idea. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Off those sites, RexResearh bothers me most, as it covers some obscures niches of technologies, which may or may not be correctly represented there (e.g. Karrick process). In contrast every sane person should see the Naudin site as look into the zoo of free enery and antigravity nutters. --Pjacobi 13:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta

He is notable. Enough said. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta... pah! --Rikki-lee travolta 1030 12:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Please take a look at this reinsertion of the AIDSwiki on Harvey Bialy. User:Revolver is the named account of the IP you blocked (User:68.35.72.13) for spamming the AIDSWiki (and also the creator and main editor of said wiki). This post (particularly the last paragraph) may also be relevant. Have another trout handy? MastCell 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Heritage Alliance

I've nominated this article for deletion review. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 8. CJCurrie 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For all your work on Misplaced Pages, your anti-spam and vandal work, and for being one of the best admins around! Keep your good work up, and enjoy this barnstar! SunStar Net 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat

Hello. User:CyclePat has been harassing Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance, and now he's harassing me as well (including aparently setting up an RfC against me). I've been holding off because you said you'd look into it and talk with him. Will you still be doing so? --Kim Bruning 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat is still out and about....more ANI, more WT:ASSIST, bleh --Iamunknown 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in Oklahoma

In your comment in this discussion, you noted that this discussion should be sent elsewhere. Now that the AfD has been closed, the question now is where to hold this discussion. I encourage you and the other editors (listed below) to find a suitable spot for this discussion and carry out the necessary steps for making a decision.

Perhaps this message does not make any sense whatsoever. In which case, please respond to this message and indicate what you want me (as the closing admin of the aforementioned AfD discussion) to do to carry out the result of the AfD. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

c.c.: User:After Midnight, User:JzG, User:Elkman User:Dennisthe2, User:Arkyan, and User:Mister.Manticore.

  • I agree. I saw that it was closed yesterday and was going to create the umbrella nom for all (52) the articles in the category, until I noticed the note from the closing admin (IanManka) suggested that AFD was not the right place. So... should I just go ahead and create the umbrella nom? or do we need additional discussion? or is there some other procedure that he is expecting of us? --After Midnight 11:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, well I'm starting my workday now, so I'll take a crack at it tonight. If you think that you would like to take a look at it before I post it, please just respond here and I'll put it in a sandbox for you to take a peek and give any input. --After Midnight 12:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Captain scarlet comments

Hi. Unfortunately, I was sick in bed on Friday, and did not see Captain scarlet's response to his block. However, I am completely baffled by your comments at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#User:Captain scarlet's photographs: "Moral: think long and hard about indef-blocking anyone who has meaningful contributions. Single-purpose vandal accounts are ten a penny, editors like this, rather less so." I have no idea what indef blocking has to do with the scenario, but surely this sort of response to a 24 hour block for deliberate breach of the 3RR should make us question the helpfulness of "editors like this", as well as the usefulness of blocks in encouraging co-operative editing? JPD (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Democrazy (film)

You have now deleted this twice on spurious grounds; please stop. If you are determined to see it deleted, open another second AfD on it. It clearly makes a cliam to significance, and as one of the people who edited it, I take exception to the claim that I'm involved in advertising it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • A7 isn't for films, and G11 obviously doesn't apply here. G11 applies to what's written, not who puts it there. You know this, Guy, this is why people get frustrated sometimes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A7 is for subjects that do not credibly assert notability. We can pretend that certain types of articles don't need to make any claim of notability, but it's not terribly sensible. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't pretend, it's for certain types of articles that don't assert, not any and all. It's entirely sensible - a controversial, more-open-to-abuse-than-others criteria is not expanded easily, and for good reason. If you're treating A7 as any old article, please, stop. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

No, it isn't. If he deletes it again, I shall block him for deleting an article out of process. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You know something? When you monitor your deletion log for articles re-created out of process, it can be hard to miss the difference between obsessively reposted spam articles, and spam articles restored by an admin who didn't think your opinion sufficiently worthwhile to actually bother leaving a note on your fucking talk page. Because, you know, it's really really hard work to leave a note when you undo another admin's actions, and much easier to threaten to block them if they dare do it again after the event, isn't it? Thank you so much. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If people are going to make a stink, why not just put it up for AfD? --Minderbinder 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no problem with that. I have a bit of a problem with the reverting of one of my admin actions without letting me know, so I look a tit by re-deleting something that was restored instead of re-posted (and yes I know I should have checked, but it is still polite to let another admin know when you revert one fo their actions). I have an absolutely fucking huge problem with another admin threatening to block me (in a dispute in which they are clearly involved, I might add) if, after having pointed out that they undeleted it, I delete it again - as if that is likely to happen. People can accuse me of being bad tempered, foul-mouthed, unforgiving, inflexible, verbose, whatever, but pleas, please 'don't treat me as if I am a fucking idiot because although I am perfectly capable of being foolish, two things I am not are evil and stupid. And bear in mind that this follows on form a similar case recently, where someone didn't bother to let me know they'd undeleted something I nuked. Understand: I have absolutely no problem at all with people reviewing and sometimes reverting my deletions, but it would be, you know, neighbourly to at least drop me a note. So I don't reflexively nuke them again and look like a tit or start a wheel war when they show blue in my deletion log. Do I sound pissed off? I certainly hope so, because believe me, I am. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I love that Mel is chastising you for all this humbug by saying he'll block, which would end up in him being chastised. Cute. --Iamunknown 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In all seriousness, Guy... take a deep breath and let it go. We lost this fight a very, very long time ago, when Borgman/Legge/whichever-of-them-it-is fooled real users into doing his spamming for him. By all means insist on legitimate third-party sources for articles in their stolen little corner of Misplaced Pages; this will be enough to keep the kudzu somewhat under control. But getting rid of the articles entirely is at this point a lost cause. —Cryptic 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, please undelete Honey Glaze, too - that didn't qualify for A7 having been kept at AfD before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


It's true that, when I discovered that an article had been deleted out of process with what was a clearly spurious reason, I didn't let you know, and I should have done. On the other hand, you didn't let me know when you deleted it again, which makes us square. Well, not quite, because I haven't thrown myself around like a Tourettes-sufferer on speed, but let's let that pass. I hold no brief for Honey Glaze, but it passed a VfD, so also shouldn't have been speedily deleted; I'm now informing you that I'm undeleting that too.

Both articles may be taken to AfD; Cryptic and you may have been involved in a fight over this, but I'm no part of it. I'd vote to keep the Democrazy article, as it claims and demonstrates some significance; I'd either abstain or vote to delete the Honey Glaze one, as it does neither. Whetehr you take this further is up to you, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Crucial difference: an article can reappear without the intervention of an administrator (and indeed those that do reappear generally are simply reposted by the original editor); an article cannot be deleted without the intervention of an admin. In clicking Undelete you always revert the action of another administrator. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I understand now why you deleted the Reviews section for this book. I have replaced them as quotations. Is that ok? --Lesley Fairbairn 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Officer_Roseland

Hello. I Am from the band Officer Roseland. my cousin created a page on here for us, and it was deleted. I was wondering if you can tell me why? It shouldn't have been created as an ad or anything like that.

Bonesmang 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion you might find interesting

Remember User:Fact Finder? This report looks an awful lot like his MO, but nobody commenting there has pointed that out yet. I'd make a note of it myself, but as you were involved with the guy earlier, I figured I'd make sure you saw it. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

User talk:Reddi. I would like references to myself removed as I find them inappropriate and demeaning. Can you assist? ScienceApologist 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)