Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 23 April 2008

User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam.

I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.

I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Misplaced Pages is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.

Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

cleanups

please undo your deletion of User talk:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin and User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin. Cheers, Jaakobou 18:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't; I've dealt with Jaakobou before, and he's got a problem with POV. Sceptre 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I know. Abandoned userspace POV-forks, no encyclopaedic benefit, move along please, nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try this again but this time in a more collaborative manner and hopefully, without the snide comments by editors who don't know the subject matter.

Please return "User:Jaakobou/Celebrations" for a time span of 5 days. I believe there were a few minor differences between that version and the current one. I'd like to make a comparison and fix whatever it is I could fix and move on to the other pages. Jaakobou 07:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted on your page (above), I request permission to WP:TROUT you for repeated use of the words "POV" and "FORK" in some combination with "no encyclopaedic benefit" bad faith assumptions; and also for lack of conversation/inquiry.

With respect, Jaakobou 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that made me smile, anyway - the first sane reaction in the whole silly dramah thus far :-) Guy (Help!) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, we have MfD for a reason  :| -- Ned Scott 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this sort of reason: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sherurcij/cars. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • JzG, can you please retrieve all the deleted pages (that were not yet retrieved) and posting a list of all the deleted pages on my talk page? I'll run by them as fast as I can and add disclaimers or support/object deletion.
    With respect, Jaakobou 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    p.s. I've also left a comment here. Jaakobou 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Network of European Technocrats

JzG.. Isenhand editor also known as Andrew Wallace the NET director has put up what appears to be a complete copy of the previous article that was deleted via the Article for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/Network_of_European_Technocrats Network of European Technocrats - Misplaced Pages, the 💕

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Network_of_European_Technocrats Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Network of European Technocrats. Is this a candidate for this http://en.wikipedia.org/Speedy_delete Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion ? if so could you please do that. This would appear to be an attempt at advertising a forum/blog done by the administrator of an organization. Being unfamiliar with protocol and proper procedure on this I have also given this information to a couple other admin editors. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#G4, and not the first time either. Try {{db-g4}} if you see it popping up anywhere else. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Guy, i have added text as you requested for authentication traceback. This concerns Ms Gina Bold's page. Date of entry 21/04/08

BLP issue at pro-pedophile activism

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Patrick_Califia-Rice

Should Jack or I post on AN/I, or at BLP first? Tks for any advice about how to proceed,-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of Cafepress on talk pages

This is not a good thing to be doing indiscriminately. No offense, but I think this speaks for itself. --Kizor 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Spamlinks are spamlinks. There are lots of good folks using Cafepress (and some overtly evil ones); but links to commercial sites like that are out of place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Even Misplaced Pages branded spam is still spam. I'm sure Cafepress make money on it too, after all. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Unless the guy behind that talk:cleanup comment had some sort of hidden nefarious agenda to advertise Cafepress, he was not advertising but using the link to help his argument. Likewise the link here had a good reason for its presence. I'm not saying "don't remove advertising", but judging from the above links to Cafepress cannot be categorically deemed ads. --Kizor 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this: if you're trying to clean up spam, excess links to spam sites in talk and other ancilliary pages make it harder to find in mainspace - and with cafepress, every click counts, as it were, because everything on cafepress is user-generated merchandising. You don't need the magic letters http:// in order to make it clear that a spam link is a spam link, it functions just as well for discussion purposes whether it works or not. In my view, cafepress links are right up there with Amazon affiliate spam. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Links' usefulness for discussion purposes does get hindered when they are neutered in a way that forces editors to copypaste while avoiding the clutter that is also left behind... are you saying that valid links to abused sites have to be removed in order to help removing the invalid ones from other namespaces?

Also: come on, this was just silly. --Kizor 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a spammer will find that a link shorn of its http:// is "neutered" but I don't think it hinders discussion in any meaningful way. But tell me, do you think that links to cafepress sites set up by fans and web forum members are an improvement to the encyclopaedia? And to take the example you link above, But under an Ultima Thule website button marked "Support" is , where Ultima Thule branded merchadise is sold in a user-owned online shop - what more do we need to know in order to judge that? Guy (Help!) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) When they are used as reasonable elements in arguments, yes. That would be why I undid seven neuterings - out of several dozen program-assisted ones - while leaving the rest of them alone. Tell me, would it be acceptable to leave this minority alone and go whack the rest? --Kizor 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually about 80 unlinkings (neutering is just the teensiest bit judgmental, don't you think?). And in the end: it's spam. Spam, spam, spam, bloody spam. Why are you wasting time preserving links to spam? Guy (Help!) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, I don't, I considered it a neutral technical term. Remember that uproar in the West Coast about computers having "master" and "slave" drives? I try to avoid that. Do suggest a better term if you don't want to use this one.
  
  Because the links to Cafepress that I'm interested in preserving have reasons to be here other than linking to Cafepress, which in my lexicon makes them not spam, and neutering them seems to do nothing but force editors to jump through an extra hoop. --Kizor 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlink, neuter. Neuter, unlink. Yes, I think I can tell which is more neutral, thanks. So: what was wrong wht the term I used, unlink? Oh, that's right, you prefer neuter. How about "emasculate"? That's even more technical. What a silly discussion, anyway. I'm trying to get the spam count down, that's all. Unfortunately I now have to triple check everything to make sure I'm not in a revert war for the holy principle of linking to a webshop. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Unless you think that I was trying to insult you, why are we talking about the word? And if you did think that, I assure you that it would not be my style. I am as subtle as a brick. And it's late over here, so make that a brick with a rocket exhaust. --Kizor 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, late here too. Time to knock off for the night. I will stop hating spammers until tomorrow :o) Guy (Help!) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

CafePress was on one of my user pages because they sell Misplaced Pages T-shirts, etc. Misplaced Pages gets a share of the profits. Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And so does Cafepress. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Award notice

Have I given you a barnstar before? I can't remember.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded to JzG for going above and beyond the call of rougeness to improve Misplaced Pages. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD and cafepress?

Howdy, are you just concerned about the cafepress link on the userfied article? I have no issue with removing the link from the current version. Deleting the article will cause disruption. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keithmb and Gina Bold

Since I assume that you are better informed about the situation than most of us would you please tell me if you know any reason why he is removing references used in the article for verification per policy? There is a fine line between allowing someone with a COI to fix controversial stuff and letting the same person remove references without so much as an edit summary. Cheers, EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would ask him - it's probably just newbie errors, or it might be that he considers the sources polemical. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Having quarrelled with you once on this general topic, I thought I ought to let you know I'm coming around ].

I'm sorry the quarrelling, a while back, was so dramatic. David in DC (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nive of you to say, thanks. I know I lack diplomacy, so any fault is probably all mine. Guy (Help!) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Spam members
• Misplaced Pages OTRS volunteers
• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping