Misplaced Pages

Oh, and BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT !!! You also removed some absolutely harmless userboxes on my userpage that have NOTHING TO DO with WP:SOAP or WP:USER. Can you explain how the removal of those are justified, or will you restore them please!
Rfwoolf 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

I see. It seems that as an addition to the removal of your comment-analysis on Misplaced Pages's Deletion Review, he has protected your page from further editing. This conflict is not soon to go way without cooperation between the two of you. As an advocate, I must remain neutral, so I'd have to say that no one is right here. Perhaps your comments on your userpage were a bit too close to SOAP, and it looks to be a bit extreme that Guy locked your page.

As I said before, Guy is not unreasonable, you may, and I recommend it, just need to talk to him. Take up the issues you have raised. If you are unsatisfied with his answer, come back to me. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I remain completely reasonable. I consulted your counsel on WP:SOAP because as far as I could see WP:SOAP refers to Encyclopedia articles (WP:USER covers userpages and that seems to allow constructive criticism on wikipedia. That is what I said in my Edit Summary when I reverted Guy's censorship -- something he should have responded to (being so reasonable -- but he didn't. Honestly, Guy hasn't been very reasonable to begin with -- which is why I came to you!
2. You forgot to mention that Guy removed all my hard work on the talk page of the Anal stretching article where I was trying to recreate the article. This was in compliance with his wishes, and yours. And you call this, reasonable? ... rather unreasonable, and unilateral if you asked me. As you are an admin I request that you immediately retriev my hard work and place it as a user-subpage.
3. Finally, if you go to my Userpage History, you will see that Guy has also removed a section with some absolutely harmless userboxes, which were NEVER even remotely in violation of WP:SOAP or WP:USER. Surely you must concede that this was wrong?
   

If Guy thinks he's reasonable, perhaps he should try harder to be, because I respond very well to reason -- these actions have been unilateral!

Rfwoolf 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The brink <- this title is ambiguous

Stepping back and disengaging from Guy and the AFD'd article would be the right response now. Continuing to make (shakey) allegations against him for doing what others (who are neutral) see as simply his adminly duties will benefit you little. Better to carefully and quietly make a case here for why such an article is warranted, and not take AFDs and those who maintain them personally. Please consider this advice. FeloniousMonk 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Well, thank-you for your input. However your input doesn't seem to acknowledge that a) Guy said I could recreate the Anal stretching article and show it to him before he'll unprotect the article -- which was also a finding of the Deletion Review (!!!) and when I put in a few hours of doing just that -- he unilaterally deletes all my work! There's no history function to allow me to restore it. Those actions were a) unilateral, b) uncalled for, c) against the advice of Deletion Review, and d) uncivil. (and unadminly).
   
2. Your input also doesn't acknowledge that Guy didn't respond to the Edit Summary on my userpage -- which argued why he should not censor my userpage. Instead of doing the adminly thing and using reason to explain why my comments should be censored, he instead unilaterally censors and protects my userpage.
   
3. I must implore you, as an admin, that if for any reason you disagree or take Guy's side, that you will respect my frustration and make some honest attempt to explain your rationale and help me out of this situation, i.e. don't be incestuous. Admins have a lot more power than normal users, and I am continuously at the mercy of admins who don't explain themselves and act unilaterally. Thank-you

Rfwoolf 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that -- if you go to my Userpage History -- you will see that Guy has also removed a section containing some harmless userboxes. I do not believe they could ever in a million years be in violation of WP:SOAP or WP:USER -- making Guy's actions even more invalid. Do you believe that Guy's behaviour has been beyond reproach? (mind you, don't actually answer that because you'd have to dig up the whole deletion review, the requests for AMA, etc etc).

Rfwoolf 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the look of it, the userbox deletion was incidental or accidental; the WP:SOAP comment presumably refers to the "Grave warning on current Wiki Policy" section. Guettarda 03:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, all this input from admins. Tell me, do you agree that my comments were in violation of WP:SOAP (which refers to articles), and do you believe my comments weren't protected by WP:USER? More over, with regard to the incidental or accidental deletion of the userboxes -- does that mean you aren't going to restore them? I'm confused. Rfwoolf 06:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP does not only reply to articles. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. That applies to all of Misplaced Pages. No part of Misplaced Pages is a soapbox. None of it. Understand? I have reinstated the userboxes (which were simply swept up with the nonsense) and will unprotect your userpage as soon as you show that you do not intend to continue using it as a soapbox. You have been told repeatedly why the article was dleeted and what to do about it, and your continued refusal to accept this, and your imputing motives where none exist, is becoming disruptive. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology to Guy for editorializing -- only because my one comment was prejudicial -- I do not have proper evidence at this time that Guy deleted my work on Anal stretching talkpage -- although I don't have any other suspects at the time. I retract my prejudicial statement with apologies.

• This is among the most stupid things you have said in respect of this dispute, which gives it some pretty stiff competition. The idea of suspects for deletion is patently ludicrous, it's in the deletion log linked from the "We don't have an article" screen. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading all the above comments, your edits here and elsewhere do strike me as not only crossing the line as far as WP:SOAP goes, but WP:POINT as well, as your several edits to this section's title and comments here indicate: , , ,

I'm saddened that you failed to take my simple advice to step back. Instead, it appears you're trying to fan flames, creating the User:Rfwoolf/Evidence subpage and continuing to follow Guy to his user talk page: Your actions have gone beyond behavior that is simply annoying and counter-productive to become actions that are disruptive, all for an article the community has rejected on a marginal topic. And you give every indication that you are refractory and willing to expand the disruption. I strongly urge you to reconsider both my advice and your method, because the community has a finite amount of patience for those who willing disrupt the project. FeloniousMonk 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thank-you for your feedback. You didn't seem to respond to my last post to you where I complained you weren't acknowledging any other parts of this situation. You are responding to issues after the fact -- for example you are accusing me of fanning flames -- when it appears that Guy not only protected my userpages, but -- allegedly -- deleted all my work on rewriting the article on Anal Stretching which (if you look at the evidence page) was supported by at least half a dozen people. He also deleted my userboxes. So who is fanning flames?

That said I will listen to your remark about WP:SOAP as I needed an opinion about that. So you believe that my constructive criticism on wiki deletion policy qualifies as WP:SOAP, and that WP:SOAP doesn't only refer to articles (which it clearly does) and that WP:USER doesn't protect constructive criticism of wiki policies. Well! That's very interesting! -- Like I said before, respond to my previous post FIRST, please. Rfwoolf 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, regardless of whether you believe your actions are constructive and well-intentioned, you'd wise to disengage and work quietly on a subpage of your user space making a draft article on the topic that the community would accept; that's the best use of your time and the community's goodwill. Doing so would be a great demonstration of your good intentions and immediately defuse the situation. I really think you'd be making a mistake to continue as you have. FeloniousMonk 13:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted, if that's the case, but the burning issue is what the hell happened to my hours of work on the Anal stretching talkpage -- where did it go and why is the history hidden? Your comment that I followed Guy to his user talk page disappoints me -- how else am I to determine what happened to my work? And I was rather civil -- he wasn't very nice in his response. You keep saying I must disengage -- I have been! But when my userpage gets protected and my work gets deleted and any response is criticised by you, it's not great. I have to find out who removed my work -- the sooner I know, the sooner I can do something about. As for Guy protecting my userpage -- I'm busy getting feedback from other admins on what they think because I am reasonable and appreciate their feedback. Your feedback -- with respect -- is very selective and seems to see nothing from my point of view, and as a minor point, ignores the history of this debacle. Rfwoolf 13:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to respond to this: you'd wise to disengage and work quietly on a subpage of your user space making a draft article on the topic that the community would accept -- but that's exactly what I was doing -- you didn't know that? It was deleted: Anal stretching talkpage -- and I need to get it back. Why should I re-rewrite an article from scratch? Efforts should now be on retrieving my deleted article. Rfwoolf 13:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The original article was rejected by the community, and it wasn't your article. Retrieving the deleted article is simply not on. If you're really interested in seeing an article on that topic included in wikipedia, starting fresh is your best bet, and looking at all the effort you've expended going after Guy, you could have written it three times over. So, working quietly on a new version in your user space is what you should do moving forward, and put any perceived past slights behind you. FeloniousMonk 13:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully: I did start afresh, I spent hours rewriting the article from scratch by first getting sources from google. Please believe me, I did start from fresh. I put all my work on the Anal stretching talkpage -- and someone deleted it. Please acknowledge that you understand that I did start writing the article afresh because your above post does not! Rfwoolf 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• What part of subpage of your user space were you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 13:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for communicating. Why does it have to be my userpage? I wanted it to be a collaborative effort and I don't see what's wrong with putting my work on the Anal stretching talkpage. (Not that I expect you to reply, you're pretty good at not explaining things, just re-iterating things -- but think you for keeping the lines of communication open) Rfwoolf 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Woolf, I have been communicating all along. What I'm waiting for is the moment you start listening. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(--So, why does it have to be my userpage?)

What if we hit pause for a moment and stop filming and talk about the so-called 'Way Forward'. I started giving up on you unSALTing the Anal stretching article so I started giving in to the proposal that I rewrite the article from scratch as a way forward. Then I discover all my hours of work has been removed. So now what is the way forward?

Then of course there's the other issue of you having locked my userpage. You have not really given me a way-forward and I have to wonder if you are trying to provoke me in some way. I still believe that a constructive criticism of 1 wikipolicy should be allowed in my user talk page. Now, is your beef that it's SOAP, or is your beef that it mentions you once? As a way forward:

• First prize: Will you unlock my userpage and restore my constructive criticism if I remove all references to you?
• Second prize: Will you unlock my userpage if I promise not to repost the constructive criticism?
  

(Don't you think you should have responded to my Edit Summary saying why I didn't by SOAP and convinced me of otherwise instead of throwing your toys and locking?)

So... I'm listening. Rfwoolf 14:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're posturing. There is a difference. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editorialising other people's comments

This is completely unacceptable. Don't EVER do that. Never editorialise other people's comments, ever. Not to anybody. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology to Guy for editorializing -- only because my one comment was prejudicial -- I do not have proper evidence at this time that Guy deleted my work on Anal stretching talkpage -- although I don't have any other suspects at the time. I retract my prejudicial statement with apologies. Rfwoolf 14:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

--I guess I get carried away on my usertalk page, wouldn't dream of doing that type of editorializing anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. I am retracting those edits. Rfwoolf 14:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. You can actually get along. Misplaced Pages is a learning environment, Guy, thank you for your patience. Rfwoolf, thank you for your good learning attitude. Dfrg.msc 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I deleted the Talk page because there's no corresponding article, and there was nothing in the Talk page that made it an exception to the normal rules for speedy deletion. Also, a Talk page isn't the place to recreate an article that has been deleted after an AfD. The material that you left on my Talk page clearly states that the proper place is at User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching (nor do the links seem to lead to pages where anyone else suggests that the article's Talk page should be used for that purpose).

Moreover, I can see no sign that you were in fact rebuilding the article on the Talk page. I saw a lot of snide remarks about Misplaced Pages, its editors, admins, policies, etc., and a long list of numbered comments of various kinds, all added by you. If you really believe that this topic is of such importance that it demands an article in an encyclopædia, and if you think that it can be written within Misplaced Pages guidelines, then go ahead — preferably offline, but at the above page in your User space if you've nowhere else to write it. Then you can ask if it's OK to move it to article space, and if it is, an admin will do it for you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Moreover, I can see no sign that you were in fact rebuilding the article on the Talk page. "
--That's not fair. I spent quite a few hours sorting through various sources and you should clearly see my references and notes: first-prize sources, second-prize sources etc. I was in fact making an attempt to rebuild the article. Rfwoolf 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "first-prize sources, second-prize sources etc.", but I see that someone else has provided the article for you anyway. If you want your notes at the talk page, I can do that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me do a bit of editing to the content -- cos I'm gonna go crazy if another admin deletes it citing G4 all because I didn't put up a template saying "Major rewrite in progress" -- or something to stop them -- or implore them to stop etc. and then sure, I'd like that. Thanks. Rfwoolf 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the message telling you that the rticle had been placed in your user space? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. I was trying not to attract too much attention to the fact -- because I'm worried it would be G4d or something. Rfwoolf 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As long s it's in your user space and clearly marked as under development, you should be OK. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Derena's helpme tag

Hi, he (User Talk:Derena) e-mailed me asking if I'm one of the charged ones here and said that he had a few questions. After that I had no contact with him, so, that help template wasn't added by mistake and hasn't asked what he was wondering about. Bye for now, --Bahar (Spring in Turkish) ✍ 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rfwoolf 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When I removed the {{helpme}} tag I added a note to the user saying "Hi, what can I help you with" (It's arguably not advised to leave {{helpme}} tags up for too long because they attract attention and are suppoesd to be removed as soon as someone comes to help -- which was technically you, and me) . Since this could be a language thing, I will recommend that you specifically add a post offering help -- if you have not done so already. Thanks for the response. Rfwoolf 10:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Response from Dfrg.msc

I now have read Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rfwoolf. No, I'm not an admin, as you previously thought, but be assured that that does not at all effect any of my ability to function effectively on Misplaced Pages. Being an admin (as you aspire to be) is essentially janitorial duties for Misplaced Pages. As an advocate, it is imperative that I do not take sides. I do however, love taking them, which is not to say that I always do. I practice a more "selective neutrality".

I have been busy, and the only thing stopping me from "counseling you properly" is the huge amount of sorted reading that I have to do to keep on top of what is actually happening. Look as far and wide as you can for support if you feel that it will help you. I'm going to keep trudging though and once I have a full understanding of the situation, talk to Guy. Dfrg.msc 10:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you keep making good edits to this: User talk:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching article, I see no reason for it to be deleted. Upon review it may be reinstated. Dfrg.msc 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your response. I agree that there is a fair amount of reading that is necessary to stay 100% up to speed. What is currently disturbing me is not so much the Anal Stretching rewrite (which I hope to finish someday) but rather that my userpage has been protected, and the very bad etiquette involved (see the Edit Summaries on my USER page) by protecting before responding to my defense -- that WP:USER governs user talk pages and fully supports constructive criticism on Misplaced Pages. That's what's troubling me, that Guy is apparently abusing his admin powers. It was not part of your AMA mandate to help me with that, but if you can, see what you can do. It also helps having you as a witness -- whether I'm in the right or (somehow) actually in the wrong over that issue -- at least you are on some level: watching. Rfwoolf 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Watching I am. At least Guy has given you back your user boxes. If you think that anyone is abusing their power or privilege then you should take it up with them, and if you are unsatisfied, refer it to a higher power. I will remain neutral; however I will say that you are both :

• Entitled to have a free and editable User page (upon condition)

and

• Entitled to make constructive criticism on any subject (upon condition and within reason)

It is late for me, I am tired and will soon depart. I will pick this up in the morning. Regards, Dfrg.msc 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. My philosophy in remaining neutral which has not proven really effective for you. However, it has not proven effective for Guy either, keeping the process fair and un-bias. Look to the new resolution. Dfrg.msc 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Total Resolution Proposal

There are many issues still in conflict and with a bit of co-operation, they can all be resolved at once.

1. Restoration of the Article: Anal Stretching

Rfwoolf will be allowed to continue to edit this User talk:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching uninterrupted and without persecution. It will not be deleted or degraded in anyway.

Upon completion, the article will be reviewed by myself and Guy. Pending that, the article will be restored.

Discussion/Comments:

• Agreement from Rfwoolf:
• Agreement from Guy:
• Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.msc 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Un-protection of Rfwoolf's Userpage

Rfwoolf's Userpage will be unlocked when Rfwoolf meets these condition(s):

• As specified by Guy

Discussion/Comments:

1. Guy removes wikipolicy section on my userpage citing WP:SOAP. Onus is on Rfwoolf to either comply, or justify the inclusion of the section according to WP:SOAP or another wikipolicy.
2. Rfwoolf puts back wikipolicy section citing that WP:SOAP refers to encyclopedia articles only. Onus is on Guy to either accept, or if he disagrees then to revert and cite WP:SOAP or cite a different wikipolicy.

• It was at this point that Guy (not even reverting once) just reverted and protected the page. Onus is on guy to justify his actions - he cites WP:SOAP

So it is clear at this stage that Guy jumped the gun and was acting unilaterally, and uncivilly.

1. Rfwoolf then communicated with him, clearly arguing why WP:SOAP refers to articles (and not userpages) and how WP:USER clearly protects constructive criticism of wikipedia on a userpage. Onus is on Guy to take note, and either agree, or respond arguing (in this case) why WP:USER does not protect my comments. Guy fails to do so.

So it is clear at this stage that Guy has not been open to properly justifying his harsh actions with wikipolicy. He has totally ignored Rfwoolf's citing of WP:USER and refused to make comment about this protective piece of wikipolicy.

Rfwoolf 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agreement from Rfwoolf:
• Agreement from Guy:
• Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.msc 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Case Closed

The case will be closed. My official part in the events regarding the Anal stretching article and interaction between Rfwoolf and Guy will be over.

Discussion/Comments:

• Agreement from Rfwoolf:
• Agreement from Guy:
• Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.msc 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Understand

This article got a prod and was deleted. He has created article in past. After tonight's prod and delete, the article was recreated again. I believe language differences may play into this. This user needs an editor to shepherd in the article creation process. I don't know if the templates for creating an article and playing in the sandbox will help. His statement on the article seemed like a cry for help if I ever saw one. Ronbo76 06:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the entire history of the article. I have made the following conclusions:

• According to the log history of the article, it has never been deleted (if an article has been deleted and then recreated, its deletion history can be found by clicking on View logs of this page on the article's history page.
  
• The article has had the prod tag added and taken away and re-added (although 20 days apart).
  
• The user User:Bakasuprman when he removed the {{prod}} tag noted "rm prod, hes notable indo-nostalgic writer" (although this does not necessarily make him right) (So at least one advanced wikipedian believes in this articles notability -- although this must obviously be supported by correct citations)
  
• Google has ~666 hits for Moncy Pothen, and ~13400 hits for his book Beneath the Clouds and Coconut Leaves including a listing of his book on Amazon.com
• The article has not yet been put up for deletion review (ever).
• My advice is as follows (in this order):

1. First find a decent reference to him and his book Beneath the Clouds and Coconut Leaves -- like the amazon one which is apparently commercial. Why can't we use the Amazon.com link as a reference? (Surely that doesn't count as a commercial link?) Perhaps we can find a listing of the book on the ISBN?
   
2. Check carefully if nothing has been published mentioning this author: perhaps a newspaper article reviewing his book.
   
3. Once theses above attempts have been properly made, if you still feel the article does not meet notability requirements, file for AfD (Articles for Deletion).
   

What do you think? Rfwoolf 07:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head - mine.

Maybe I have just seen the prods but I honestly thought his articles had been deleted. I do not know if a good reference for the book exists. I could never find it. Based upon the edits, I honestly thought they were WP:COI especially with the links to an amazon order site. One of the things I noticed while on vandal patrol that caught my attention back when (as in when the alert light came on), was all the edits came from a nribooks - that looked like maybe the publisher trying to create a market in my mind combined with all the edits coming from one user with no references.

I am reluctant to do the AfD. I've been down that road and some senior editors seem to have put my feet to the fire for all my efforts. For the same reason, I have gone off vandal patrol and only protect the 493 pages on my watchlist. Ronbo76 07:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some where on your page I saw the following:

• Proposal
• I propose that:

• The article is recreated (using any means and material) in user space.
• Guy and my self Some other editor will review the article, and make recommendations to the quality and correct content.

Those would be my recommendations for this situation. If the author is legit, nribooks needs some editor to help get the article published. However, the big caveat is that nribook cannot make all the edits. It should be created on the userpage as a sandbox entry and then developed by a guardian angel editor. Ronbo76 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recommendation about the article being recreated in user space is not advisable while the article still exists and is not currently in AfD or is not currently deleted. There are two issues with the article: Notability and Verifiability. The correct step is to see if there are any good references (I think the author's official site at least verifies on some level) but most importantly we need to find notability -- and I don't think we can. I have asked the article's main contributor (Nribooks) for some published references -- and in the meantime you can motion for Afd, advising that we might give the article a few days for people to find some good source for notability. Rfwoolf 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking through google to find any published references to either the book or to the author -- and I can't seem to find any. I've visited a few English-language Indian newspapers and nothing comes up under the author's name, and I've also searched the New York Times. The book certainly exists, which gives some hope for the article Beneath the Clouds and Coconut Leaves but doesn't give much hope for the author.

I believe we need to ask a wise wikipedian if an amazon.com listing of the book (as well as ISBN numbers) that mention the author of the book as being Moncy Pothen -- is a good enough reference to make the author notable? I believe that it may not, and that only a published reference to the author itself -- such as a newspaper review -- would do that. But then there's the question of whether published references to the author in a foreign-language is acceptable, because I believe there is one on his website. Let me see what enquiries I can make. If there are no decent references to the author, I'm sure we can go to AfD (but the article on the book itself might notmake it there). Rfwoolf 07:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Every thing that has been said here is pretty much why I asked for the helpme for this individual. It is going to take someone smarter than me to figure out what if any thing makes the author notable. I can do internet searches that usually find good references about most topics but with this one, as someone else said, most hits link back here or to other mirror sites.

One of the problems that we have with foreign countries is that their information does not receive hits like here in American or that somehow it does make the search engines' notable hit list. It would be a shame if this individual is notable in his country and we as Americans miss the notability factor because of the way information is recorded, reported and factored into web hits. I have seen this trend in AfD debates. Foreign articles usually lose. It will take a wiseman to figure this one out. Ronbo76 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My helpme tag

Hi Rfwoolf, thanks for replying. I created an account over at Wiki Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/ earlier today using the same "Sarayuparin" login name. I don't know what happened, but I cannot access my account. It's possible that I fouled up the password. If there is a question of authenticating that I am the same Sarayuparin at Commons, my Talk page points to my Misplaced Pages Talk page. Do you know who I should contact about this? I could not find information about this sort of thing in the Help pages. I would imagine that there would be some sort of single sign-on for all of the Wikimedia projects. Thanks. Sarayuparin 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarayuparin.

I'm sorry to hear about your problem.

1. Apparently, your user account is not uniform throughout all of wikimedia, i.e. if you create an account on en.Misplaced Pages.org, you do not have the same account on commons.wikimedia.org
2. The help page that deals with login problems on commons.wikimedia.org is HERE

Unfortunately it states:

If you enter an e-mail address when signing up for the account, or in your Preferences, you can request on the login screen for a temporary password to be sent to that address, which will allow you to retrieve your account. If you did not enter an e-mail address, or the address was out of date, you will have to create a new account.

So, if you signed up with an email address, then you can simply retrieve your password, but, if you didn't sign up with an email address, you will need to create a new account.

My advice is to first do your best to see if you can remember your password. It is for this reason that they ask you to enter your password twice when you create an account. One common mistake is that users leave CAPS lock on. If you really cannot remember your password, and you don't want to create another account, then your next option is to talk to a user on wikicommons that has access to the database and may be able to help you verify your account. I wasn't yet able to find someone that's just right for that, but here is the talk page of an admin: NielsF who may be able to help you out. (You can send him a message on his talk page without having an account)
If I find someone better I will let you know
good luck. Rfwoolf 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Just be cautious in your use of your user page. No personal attacks, no advocacy. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, I saw the request on Guys page. Speaking of advocacy, Woolf, Misplaced Pages:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf needs some attention in regards to the proposal. Олахо! Dfrg.msc 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Woolf, you have restored the soapboxing pretty much intact and you are still making the baseless claim of unilateral salting when actually I undeleted the history for review, and salting was endorsed by that review (it was Trialsanderrors who then re-deleted the history). Mistakes are forgivable, but wilfully perpetuating a falsehood after its been pointed out to you numerous times looks a great deal like trolling. Fix it, please. Now. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the first request you are making to remove that part of the article (other than a general deletion of the whole article claiming WP:SOAP). Thank-you for being specific, constructing your argument on reason and fairness.

I will be fixing that reference on my userpage. Rfwoolf 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That reference to you has been fixed. Rfwoolf 06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a small section of your user page since it was a personal attack. I recommend you tone-down the soapboxing on your page or more drastic steps may be taken. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You have removed a small section to my userpage which I didn't really object to you removing, but, I don't see how it is a personal attack because it says that some admins are trigger-happy deletionists. If you want me to reword that, I will?

Secondly, please do not make a general claim of Soapboxing, because general constructive criticism about Misplaced Pages is allowed by WP:USER. If you disagree with something 'specifically, please refer to the part of the post you disagree with, instead of the whole article whose purpose WP:USER I believe protects Rfwoolf 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. Please drop the anal stretching subject for a while. Let things cool off, collect your research, find good sources and you can attempt a new article in a few months. Learning the presidents and policies in the meantime will help you build a better article that can survive an AFD.

You may see the beginnings of my rewrite here. And it has been over a month since the article was deleted.

On a side note: The freedom of speech is not a requirement that people listen to you. No-one is obliged to give you a soapbox to yell from. The right to own private property is important too, and because of them wikipedia gets to say what can and can't be said on it's computers. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted. Do you think I disagree or something? Constructive criticism on wikipedia (which is allowed by WP:USER can oftentimes help improve wikipedia by pointing out problems (real or perceptual). So my constructive criticism I still believe should be 100% allowed (until such time as WP:USER changes), and obviously personal attacks and libel are not allowed, and that is mentioned in numerous wikipolicies including WP:USER, and that is why I have complied with that request. Can you see how reason and logic and specifics has been used to enact justice? As opposed to when Guy just protected my userpage complaining of general WP:SOAP? I clearly showed him the wikipolicy which jusitifed the post he had censored. Guy failed to use reason and logic and specifics to demonstrate why WP:USER doesn't protect my post, which is the very reason it was unprotected by User:Jossi. As soon as guy used reason and logic and specifics about a personal attack against him, I complied :D Rfwoolf 07:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your extremely constructive feedback. :( Rfwoolf 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrator?

Rfwoolf, if you want to be an administrator someday (as it says on your user page), I strongly suggest you tone down the rhetoric on your user page, including the silly attacks on Guy, who was trying to help you. Just some friendly advice. Users who come here and carry on and on when they don't get their way don't end up administrators. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference claiming that Guy unilaterally SALTed the article. Even though the more I think about it, the more I see that he only protected the page to stop me from trying to fix the article in the mainspace, and this wasn't properly endorsed by the AfD, so call it a misunderstanding or what, I do believe he technically did protect unilaterally, and he should ultimately unprotect the page to allow other uses to make an attempt at rewriting the article.

As for your comments, I do appreciate the civil tone, even though you may not be well versed on this entire debacle. Rfwoolf 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, that constructive criticism about Misplaced Pages in a userpage is protected by WP:USER.
WP:SOAP constantly refers to articles (not userpages). Obviously, personal attacks or libel are another matter, and this is pointed out on WP:USER, and that is why I am complying with all proper requests on that matter. Rfwoolf 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty good example of what not to do. So yes, a lot of administrators are lazy and are prone to just want to delete is not an appropriate way to talk about other users (even if you're not naming them specifically).

WP:NOT can apply to userpages as well - see WP:NOT#Blog. If you intend to use your userpage to attack the project or attack classes of users (even without naming them), you're going to continue to run into trouble. My strongest advice to you is this: Stop trying to use the rules to protect your user page content. If other users are telling you they find it objectionable, be a team player and take it down. Wikilawyering will just build up ill will. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your response to the comments on my discussion page. As you no doubt gathered, I'm very bitter about an article I had initiated and was activly working on improving. Unfortunatly within days of its creation it was nominated for deletion despite my requests for help. Absolutly no creative criticism was offered, only a discussion of deletion despite daily improvements. So as you see, I'm bitter. I once was a gnome. Now I'm a troll. Really not a far fall.--Sand Squid 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Requesting your opinion

Sorry, but I feel a little under-qualified to give an opinion. Prima facie, JzG's actions seem to fall in a gray area between proper and improper administrative actions (in that policy text is not clear on the issues). He's been an administrator for a long time now, though, and probably knows what he's doing: he at least knows more than I. Given all this, I don't feel so inclined to get involved. Simões (/_contribs) 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA Case

Hey, Rfwoolf, making progress I see. A response awaits you at you know where. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Empathy

Now I know how you feel, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist). All my articles. It'll be the death of this place. Dfrg.msc 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Man woolf, when you respond, 'you respond. Thanks for your input, it's like what happend with your article, I want them all to stay so the can be freely edited, and if the same effort was put into improving them as deleting them..... Grhh. Anyway, how goes Anal Stretching? Dfrg.msc 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Resp

You forgot to sign, but I knew it was you just by looking at the contents box.

Ok. Woolf I'm going to need a day to work this information over. I don't have the time right now, but I can give you this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint about JzG. What do you want me to do with this? If Guy has been acting inappropriately, you should make appropriate actions. If you've done something to provoke this however, expect scrutiny.

I'll be in touch soon, Dfrg.msc 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Locking my userpage was inappropriate for starters - the admin that unlocked it did so without even consulting Guy because he knew it was wrong to censor me like that. Then there's the personal attacks. Talk to you later Rfwoolf 06:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. A locking of a User page should be used as a last resort. And the personal attacks. I'm sure there's motive in there somewhere.

Good luck bringing the article back, you'll have my support.

AfD is a bit shoddy, if you look at it. Every article is too unique to umbrella classify, and the amount of effort going into deleting some articles far outweighs thats trying to improve them. The only pure thing nowdays is Vandal Fighting. I'm going Vandal Fighting. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 08:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi fellow South African! Let me know what articles you think need some buffing up. I contributed to some SA articles a year or two back, then tried my hand at adding a few video game articles until things went a bit pear-shaped with the deletion of a few. Nowadays I just check out the help desks. I don't mind helping with some articles, just let me know :) Sandman30s 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW the answer to the word puzzle is Dell. Remove the capitals and extensors, and you get colours magenta, cream, cerise... with the e of cerise found in Dell. Sandman30s 13:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anal stretching

Thanks for contacting me about this. Sadly, I'm not having much of a chance to get on Misplaced Pages at the moment (exams, mainly) so don't have much opportunity to help with this article. It's still something I feel strongly about so if the issue isn't resolved when I do next have a few hours free, I'll try to help out. If you'd like me to weigh in on a particular discussion about the article or help in anyway, you're more than welcome to e-mail me. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A stupid question

Having read your Userpage, it is unclear if you've ever actually been to South Africa (or Namibia for that matter) - but it is clear that you've made significant contributions. So first off, thanks a lot for all your apparent great work, and if I may ask, how much time have you spent in South Africa -- purely out of interest? Rfwoolf 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord. It's this kind of churlishness that encouraged me to leave Misplaced Pages back in August. Yes, I've been to South Africa. I've lived there. I've met almost every South African Misplaced Pages editor. I have an ugly green passport that says Republic of South Africa / République de l'Afrique du Sud on it. Any other questions? Páll 04:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for incongruity, PZFUN, 'twas simply a bid of thanks for your work on South African articles, and an attempt to familiarise myself with some of the stronger editors on South African articles. For this reason I hardly see how I can be accused of churlishness? Such a statement was unbecoming coming from a prominent editor such as yourself who should by now be more than familiar with the fact that we are slightly lacking in South African contributors. You may be surprised if I tell you that I am South African myself, and my query was not an attack on your authority to contribute to South African articles but rather an interest in your link to South Africa as my question mentions I was asking simply out of interest. As my question further stated, your userpage doesn't mention if you've ever actually been to South Africa, and you claim to be various nationalities aside from South African, I'm sure you'd agree that my question has some merit? Rfwoolf 11:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question fit into a patern of the other South African editors on here giving me a hard time because I do not live there at the moment. It was nothing personal directed against you. I actually have lived in Cape Town for a long time and hold a South African passport. Just like to keep things as simple as possible on the user page. Sorry for barking. Páll 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk

On the reference desk, someone asked an odd question about "nymphs and humans" and you posted "Secondly, please try and rewrite your question - I can't waste too much time answering a question I don't even understand." Please do not bite the questioner. If you don't understand what the person is asking, or if they seem disoriented, please just ask for clarification or simply go on to the next question. Thanks. Edison 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT poll

My !vote is not broad opposition to ATT, but opposes this merger to its present text. I have classified your vote in the same category; please correct if I am wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please place your !vote wherever you think best. I consider mine no compromise, but other, so I moved it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer to one of your points - WP:POLICY is such a directory, and WP:5 is a shorthand link to core fundamentals which descends into the policies. Orderinchaos 06:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Very much in agreement with you on speedy deletion codes and the like. Even I still have to look up some when I see them - I have WP:CSD in my Mozilla toolbar. Orderinchaos 08:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

re:sugar based diets

No it wasn't a joke, it was one of my few comments that actually mean what they say. It is partly based on the similar diet I am on now, mostly as I like sugar, and can't be bothered to have a proper diet, and also on logic. Since people gain or lose weight mostly by changing the amount of fat in their bodies, eating food with very little fat in should help them lose weight. This gives two choices, either vegetables (which are basically water and little better than not eating at all) or carbohydrates, such as sugar or starch. Personally I prefer sugar as it tastes better. I think it is also easier to digest, and easier to respire. But when I mentioned this idea a few weeks ago I was told people on an all suger diet would have vitamin deficiencies, so it might not be a good idea to just eat sugar and nothing else, but surely better than not eating at all.

HS7 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Monitor

Hi, you left an answer on the reference desk concerning my question (luckily I saw it quickly). So I already have attached an older monitor to my computer and its fine, while my bad monitor wont work on another hardrive. Do you think that I should just buy a new monitor? 65.93.105.148 20:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

O well I 'll go and get one now.65.93.105.148 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Kinda hard to message you with you not having an account - for this question anyways. Yeah I reckon you'd better go out and get yourself another monitor - assuming they're not exhorbitantly expensive in your parts - only then would I look at repairing it. Of course if it is just a matter of the pins in the plug - you can look at them yourself - if any are bent you could try your hand at straightening them - but if any are broken off - then I'm afraid you can try plugging it in as usual but if it's no good then it's no good. I'm not sure how you'd go about repairing a monitor cable - to be honest by the time you've lugged your monitor - put it through repairs - paid for repairs - and gotten it back, you'd be better off buying one (even second hand). Good luck! Rfwoolf 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

re: tl;dr

Hi. At this diff here if you look at your comments, all you say is, "tl;dr!". Pray tell, what the hell does that mean? Rfwoolf

It means "too long; didn't read". Probably undue humour! Have a good day. JoshHolloway 09:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2007

Hi Rfwoolf

Wikimania 2007, which is being held in Taipei, Taiwan on August 3-5, is offering opportunities for travel scholarships to Wikimania for active users of Wikimedia projects from the continent of Africa. Although the original scholarship deadline has passed, please, if you are interested, you may still apply at http://wm07schols.wikimedia.org/apply.php. Sincerely yours, Cary Bass 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Installing a script

Instructions on installing a script are at Wikiproject User script's script repository; the easiest way is to edit Special:Mypage/monobook.js and write {{subst:js|name of script}} at the bottom of the page, and then save, and bypass your cache. For my category-watchlist script in particular, there is an extra install step; once you've installed the script, go to your watchlist, and it will give you instructions to complete the install process (it will ask if you want to create a category watchlist; say 'yes', and then edit the page provided and bypass your cache again. To watch {{helpme}}s, give "Wikipedians looking for help" as a category to watch). Hope that helps! --ais523 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the explanation for a deletion. It helped a lot. I'm new !! 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Titin

Well, I came to your user talk page to talk about some of your comments on titin, only to be submerged in a semi-flame war. But whatever, you seem to have solved it, so that's good. Anyway, if you would like I have the full chemical name of titin and would be willing to email it to you. Cheers, 67.188.89.50 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Serge

Hi. Difficult talking to you without a username. Sure, I'd be interested in the full chemical name of titin. I've just left a message on Wikisource to try and understand why the source listed on Wikisource was deleted ... seems that just like on Misplaced Pages, Wikisource's admins are just as vague and untransparent about their deletion actions. Rfwoolf 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that I'm officially wikian, Email me, with "titin" as the subject field. I'd be happy to send it to you next time I'm on my email. Serge

FAR

Johannesburg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 19:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gunfighter infobox

Thanks! I'll give this a try. The Parsnip! 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the helpme, I'll be trying out both to see which one works on my Mac at home. WLU 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Userpages

Do not blank and then edit commentary onto peoples userpages again. Add your comments instead to their talkpages. Thanks.--MONGO 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments ignore the fact that 1) I did add comments to his talkpage. 2) The userpage was blanked to remove a soapbox (see WP:SOAP) which is the law that the user was violating, how do I know? Because that's what he did to me a few months ago! I nonetheless added the comment "I'll be the bigger man" because even though he's breaking his own rules, I'll be the bigger man and not actually retaliate. I was going to, but I'll let this one slide, cos some admins are extra special and are completely entitled to be a hypocrit.

Please remember to assume good faith. Rfwoolf 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean here? Were you two in dispute over a deletion?--MONGO 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More than a deletion. No instead he censored my userpage and locked it. See here. After about a week, I approached the admin Jossi about it, who immediately unlocked my page, because I was in the right - you can put constructive criticism on your userpage, so says WP:USER. Not only did JzG not appologise or admit wrongdoing, he went forth to go and add constructive criticism to his own userpage. I'm just pointing out, either he should remove his soapboxing on his userpage (according to his own stupid rules), or he should admit that he was wrong and appologise. I just couldn't help pointing out the hypocracy of an admin that abuses his power from time to time. Rfwoolf 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It happens and I don't condone it, but it was six months ago...was this impossible to get sorted out then?--MONGO 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost. Misplaced Pages has its own system of recourses over these kinds of things. Unfortunately it baffles me and I don't know where to go or what to do or how to do it. So I'd need some kind of wikilawyer, or mediator. I went into mediation over the article he deleted, didn't get me very far because the mediator tried so bloody hard to not take sides that it wasn't helping either side change their perspectives. So what else is there to do? He's an admin, he's got his cronies, I'm just a wikipedian that doesn't know how to report admins - or I'll just get shot down about it. Maybe it did happen 6 months ago, but it's very relevant now. And like I said, I just really felt like pointing it out Rfwoolf 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but help me clarify something...you added a grievance commentary about the deletion of this article Anal stretching to your talkpage. JzG removed it and then protected your page. Did you try to recreate the article against consensus to do so? I really am impartial, though I do like JzG and as others he has done a lot to defend me against trolls. I do think you have a right to vent and should be accorded that right, but honestly, if you did indeed recreate the article or were being ridiculously pedantic bout the deletion of what (I can't see deleted pages) seems on the surface to have been an article of dubious encyclopedic value, this seems a little late to make a mountain out of now. You can respond here to keep the thread intact.--MONGO 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. First of all (and very very importantly), you just said:

if you did indeed recreate the article or were being ridiculously pedantic bout the deletion of what (I can't see deleted pages) seems on the surface to have been an article of dubious encyclopedic value, this seems a little late to make a mountain out of now.

Let's say I agree 100%. Show me where I made a mountain out of that now? I didn't. Now (as in the past day) I made comments pertaining to censorship on my userpage NOT the validity of a deleted and SALTed article.

I'm sure you can appreciate how absolutely frustrating it is to see allegedly impartial admins dragging that out and asking me to justify that, when the discussion on JzG's page is actually about userpage censorship. It's a debate tactic, to drag something unrelated into the debate, that makes your opponent look bag. In particular the straw man argument deals with taking an unrelated or minor issue (the straw man), making it look like that's what the debate is actually about, then knocking it down, and therefore convincing everybody that the oppononent has no case. So by dragging in the recreation of the Anal Stretching article and saying "THAT'S WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT", I now have to stop what I'm doing, forget about the debate, and defend myself on that. Very unfair.

So to answer your question. I am not making a mountain out of that issue. I simply pointed out the hypocracy of JzG by posting a "soapbox" on his userpage. Of course all his cronies pretty much raped that. Rfwoolf 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Help me understand

Hi Rfwoolf, So admin Guy has protected his page so anyone who reverts to the old one, is undone automatic, and the page comes back with that message that apparently he left for everyone to read? I am assuming that he is away or has left WP with discontent. Is this the case? I kind of liked him, he put away some vicious editors that were using sock puppetry to discredit me. Anything you can share on this matter, will be appreciated. Have a nice day. Jrod2 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My knowledge of the disputes he had with other editors is rather limited. All I know at this point is that I'm pretty darn sure he abused his adminship with me several times - 2 personal attacks (and now a third one minutes ago that takes the cake!) as well as censoring me, locking my page for a week, etc. You can add an article deletion in there somewhere that a few of us (including 1 admin) thinks was unjust - but I suppose technically he wasn't the only admin involved in its deletion So I can only tell you what I personally know. And that is that he probably is an asset to wikipedia, on the whole he was a trouper trying to remove vandalism and deleting articles that he thought needed to be deleted. But that said, his attitude I think a lot of people found rather bad. A lot of the trolls/sockpuppets didn't like him. And I found out very recently that he's on hiatus, or left, because he's disullissioned or dispondant or something. Does this help you understand? Rfwoolf 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rfwoolf, A quick look at the situation indicates that apparently the article on "Anal stretching" made admin Guy uncomfortable. You persisted (as one always should in what one believes in), but this aggravated the situation and it became a clash of beliefs. The consequent penalties that you suffered from that exchange with Guy, may have constituted an act of unfairness, but extreme remedies are sometimes permissible by WP standards. I suggest, you try editing new articles and leave this one alone, for the time being. When and if, you become an admin yourself (As stated on one of your userboxes) then you can try to create new consensus and challenge this decision at the WP:ANI. Realize, that the deviation from the main issue, was the consequence of your persistence to create renewed consensus on a subject that makes, it seems, a lot of users feel uncomfortable. Have a blessed day and don't let this rejection discourage you from being a contributor at Misplaced Pages. Jrod2 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Think you for the tone, amicability, and apparent impartiality of your response, it is refreshing from a wikipedian - a lot of the admins have power gone to their heads and seem either incapable of being impartial, or they simply don't assess the situation fairly enough to give a proper judgement. (Of course there are a handful of decent admins out there)

I want to firstly stress that today's incident on JzG's talkpage was strictly over the issues of censoring my userpage, and then locking it, and then doing the same err on his own userpage -- so the issue of the Anal Stretching article, while remotely related, is actually wholly irrelevant -- this is just in case you've blended the two. Now, getting back to the Anal Stretching article, I will tell you that I have been in talks with at least 1 admin who thinks that the article should never have been deleted. In fact there was a list of iffy' AfDs where Anal Stretching was listed as an article that probably shouldn't have been deleted - god I have to go and look this all up again.

I'll bare your comments in mind. Rfwoolf 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, this doesn't have anything to do with Guy being "uncomfortable." The article was deleted after a valid discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anal stretching and upheld at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 18. Rfwoolf recreated the deleted article twice, then spent the next month arguing for its restoration on the talk page of the salted article, until the salt page was deleted, too. I personally would not have objected to the complaint you posted on your user page, but for the record, it was only deleted for 4 days. And that was 7 months ago. Deleting Guy's user page 7 months later looks like trolling and disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Thatcher131 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to nitpick it was actually 5 months 22 days ago. Not 7 months ago. Can you see how everything gets twisted to distort things against me? Yeah I grant you that it was only 4 days, not a week like I said. But I say that's 4 days too many. Guy was on every day, so was I. It took me 4 days to find Jossi -- I wasn't very aware of the limited recourses available on Misplaced Pages.

As for the deletion of Anal Stretching, I feel compelled to now re-delve into this issue, find the admin that supported its unsalting. In fact articles are generally only supposed to tbe SALTed for a month or a few weeks. The article has remained SALTed for... 7 months! More over I want you to understand two separate (although related) debates: 1: The deletion of an article about Anal Stretching and subsequent recreation attempts and SALTing, and 2) a piece of constructive criticism on my userpage that was censored and locked for 4 days. On JzG's page we were talking about (2). Of course it suits any apparent crony-admins to try drag in other issues/debates or whatever to discredit me, but really, that debate was about (2)... not (1). But please feel free to bring up (1) with me if you so desire, here on my talk page, as it is not currently linked to any debate. Rfwoolf 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A little tip

If you're talking about censorship on Misplaced Pages, it almost always means you're barking up the wrong tree. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a forum for free speech. Friday (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you for the tip! By the way, censorship is a concept to express the situation. If you read the situation in detail, you might better understand. Rfwoolf 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

I've nominated User:Rfwoolf/Evidence, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rfwoolf/Evidence during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have followed guidelines and informed me of such a discussion. Thank you. Rfwoolf 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your post at AN/I

Hi Rfwoolf,

Regarding your comment on my talk page: my goal was to avoid an escalation of the situation (by either side). Guy's comment is more serious than yours, but both are inappropriate and I was merely pointing that out in the hope of furthering that goal. I have not reviewed the circumstances of his edit to your userpage and can therefore not comment further on the point (in part, I do not want to be drawn into the debate).

As for the current discussion at User talk:JzG, I believe disengaging (even if temporarily) is the best option at this point. Any legitimate issues can be re-addressed in a less charged environment.

As I see it, you can proceed in one of several ways. You may, as some have suggested, simply drop the issue good. That is probably good advice. You can also choose to pursue it via another venue (though please read my caveats near the end of my post).

If you wish to challenge the deletion of a certain article, you may proceed to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review if discussion with the deleting admin does not help. To determine whether a deletion review is appropriate, please read the section titled "Purpose". If the deletion was justified by policy, deletion review is not the appropriate venue for appeal (quite frankly, there is none).

If you believe JzG has inappropriate content on his userpage, you may bring up the issue with him. If that does not help, you may start a new thread at WP:AN/I regarding the matter. However, do not make this about his blanking of your userpage as it creates the impression (perhaps accurate, perhaps not) that you are acting in retaliation. (The extension of that should also be obvious: do not act in retaliation.) If there is a legitimate issue, discuss that and stay on point.

If you want some kind of action taken regarding JzG's comment, you may:

1. File a request for comment on him. Unless you can prove a pattern of behaviour that is damaging to the encyclopedia, don't file the RfC. In fact, given the circumstances, I strongly recommend against it. It is unlikely to be productive and will only create a great deal of drama.
2. File a wikiquette alert, which is a more informal process. Again, I do not think it will be particularly productive as most of what could have been discussed has already been discussed at User talk:JzG and in the AN/I thread.

I've tried to be as impartial as possible and realise that you may not be satisfied with some of the things I've written. However, I've laid out some options and provided my honest evaluation of their appropriateness. If the issue is that you truly feel that you've been wronged and would like some sort of action taken in response, I recommend that you drop the matter and move on. People are not likely to support you on something that happened 7 months ago. If your goal is retaliation, then I strongly suggest that you drop the matter immediately. I think part of the reason you did not receive a supportive response this time is that people perceived your actions as being retaliatory and WP:POINT.

My advice is to somehow try to reconcile with Guy or to limit your interaction with him to editorial matters only (at least until the two of you can get along). If you seek escalation, it's likely that it will not turn out in your favour. I also suggest that you refrain from pursuing the issue of Guy's userpage content. You found it objectionable; others didn't. If there's indeed something problematic there, someone else will notice it and let him know.

I've tried to provide a (brutally) honest evaluation of the situation as I see it. If you have any questions or comments, please feel to let me know. However, I will state right now that (barring any unexpected and exceptional developments) I do not intend to involve myself in the dispute. -- Black Falcon 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)