Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 26 December 2009

Journals

Thanks for your hard work reverting the nonsense from the IP editor who is adding zillions of tags. I thought I would try to find out what he is on about on JPC A talk page. I am too busy to do too much right now. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• He's impossible to talk to because his IPs usually only last for one editing session, and even during that session he won't talk. I've been tracking him by checking for similar IPs in the history of an article or talk page and then looking to see if that IP has a similar editing history. He often returns to the same article a couple of times over a few days, so you can follow his trail. He has some sort of obsession with citations, believing that anything that isn't directly referenced is a probable fraud. The most ludicrous example is Academic journal where he keeps adding and then removing "the journal locators" which he claims are an anti-fraud measure. I got blocked for 3RR over this article! andy (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IPs used

1. 222.67.216.110
2. 222.64.23.236
3. 222.67.217.50
4. 222.67.210.32
5. 222.64.22.104

times usually around 1700 - 2300. As shanghai

I've little experience at range blocks, but enough to know this will be difficult or impossible: 222.64 & 222.67 are Chinanet Shanghai dynamic

times usually around 1700 - 2300. As shanghai = UTC +8 and I am UTC -4 , UTC 2300 = 7 PM here, & 7 AM there.

The first were systematically in the A's, but now skipping all over. Any ideas? I will try to catch one tomorrow. Adam, if you see one, ping me. I & we all are very grateful for the catching you've been doing. DGG (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• This may be a job for a bot. Smackbot is usually along pretty quickly, tidying up. I notice that it has some pretty specific tags such as "Possible Michael Jackson vandalism"(!). How about getting it to tag anything that's in a scientific journal category where an anon IP has added {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}} tags? I don't know how to go about this, but if you could organise it I'm up for a regular patrol. The other thing of course is to find some way of instantly blocking any anon IP editor who adds those tags to a journal article and is within the ranges of 222.64 and 222.67, but a bot couldn't do that because he often only appears for a few minutes. Worth discussing at ANI? andy (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also the new feature of abuse filters. The abuse filter can make a list, and it can be monitored as a RSS. I can think of logic for the filter, but there are run-time consideration in setting up special purpose filters, so if it continues, I will ask advice there on how to do it. I'll look first to see if there's already one that might be modified. (i.p. adding fact tag to anything with our journal tag or infobox, maybe) DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Arquila INSIGHT

Andy, you reverted the addition of Arquila INSIGHT from the proprietory list as spam, I cannot see how this software should not be included into the list. Many of the software packages that are in the list are being replaced by this software? Daemonk (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have no views about other items on the list, but since there seems to be agreement that INSIGHT does not satisfy wikipedia's notability criteria then it shouldn't be there. Moreover the purpose in adding the article and this link seems to have been to promote the product. andy (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • One of the reasons given for the deletion discussion was the mentioning of the comparison of accountancy products on the article but that the product was not part of the comparison. So I was attempting to put it in correctly and not just under the retail section. I think this is a valid product for inclusion as I use more than one of the products on the list and see this as a definite product to compare with, the notability is being disputed as many of the bigger companies have easy access to notable references and the notability clause specifically mentions that smaller businesses should be taken into extra consideration, which is exactly the case for Arquila Insight.Daemonk (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is also supported by the Accountancy task force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonk (talk • contribs) 10:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You should make these points on the deletion discussion page. andy (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Jordan Palmer (social activist)

The page continues to be vandalized. Can anything be done about this? I am part of the LGBT Project and I am a Kentucky historian. There is a football payer in Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati named Jordan Palmer, and 3 other people, in addition to the other two Misplaced Pages has referenced. The only reason this one is being targeted I fear is because of his LGBT activism. I contribute as much to Misplaced Pages as I can, mainly corrections and clean-ups and I would sincerely appreciate any help you could give. The page should possibly be deleted. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea why you're asking me: I'm not an admin, I've not edited the article and I'm not interested in Kentucky or gay issues. You can report vandals and you can ask for page protection - see WP:VAN and WP:PROT andy (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Angelo II Gozzadini, Lord of Sifnos and Kythnos

Hello Andyjsmith, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Angelo II Gozzadini, Lord of Sifnos and Kythnos has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(The source seems generally accurate, so there is no reason to suspect a hoax.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Galileo notes

Thanks for moving my galileo notes - I'll get the hang of it one day. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. The problem was a missing colon in User:Rjm at sleepers/galileo andy (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rapport Empowered Education

I'm still new to this & would love to edit the page further to make it comply. Thanks! User:Faintstarlite —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

It's not a question of simply editing the page. You have to show that this company is worth an article in an encyclopaedia. Please look at WP:Nfor guidance. andy (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Hello. When requesting speedy deletion, please take the time to check that the articles really do meet the requirements. S U C K S E S S is not a band, it's an album and actually from a fairly notable band. Best, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Or another example: . Even before you nominated it a bot had had time to insert an interwiki link. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. andy (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Oxford Abstracts

Hi. I looked carefully for an assertion of notability and could not find one. What is it about the company that you believe is notable? I'm not averse to restoring it if you are able to answer that. Deb (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Oxford Abstracts Ltd "provides a widely used abstract management system notable for its low cost of ownership." and also that it has "an extensive global client base". It mentions one client who is one of the biggest publishers in the world. The company's website states that it's a market leader in its field. So at least, a credible assertion of notability and therefore not speediable.

I've been intending to create articles on all of the key players in this particular field and, to be honest, I'm hampered by the lack of decent independent coverage. It seems to me that for suppliers in a niche market it's extremely hard to meet the requirements of WP:N - check out this afd for some cogent arguments on this point. A company could be the largest manufacturer of toilet-roll tubes on the planet but nobody is ever going to write a newspaper article about them!

Abstract management is a large global industry, supplying to conference management which is a multi-billion industry, but it's not the sort of thing that gets written about much. I think that my article on Oxford Abstracts met at least minimal standards - proddable maybe but definitely not speediable. I'm also rather upset not to have been notified about the speedy tag - whoever did it should be told about the etiquette in these matters.

Anyway, can you restore it so I can address whatever issues need addressing? andy (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I just found this interesting discussion - see Question 8. andy (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Low cost of ownership" is not in itself (in my opinion, that is) a quality that makes any company or product notable. In fact, such a statement is borderline advertising, especially since the references quoted don't support this claim; actually, I don't know whether the second one does because I wasn't prepared to read all 171 pages to find out - you need to give a page reference. It would of course be a notable company if, for example, it employed 100,000 people, or if it numbered 25% of the world's libraries among its customers; but there is nothing quantifiable in the article as you created it. The example of EasyChair is not a good one, for two reasons: firstly, it is a product, whereas the article you created was for a company; second, the deletion discussion on EasyChair ends with no consensus for deletion but the only support for the article being kept came from those who created it (one of whom is now banned). Furthermore, the article retained is vastly reduced from the one originally created. So I still don't see your claim of ]. Having said that, I attach the text of the article below so that you can do some more work on it in your own space and see if you can achieve some evidence of notability.

{{Infobox company | name = Oxford Abstracts Ltd | logo = | type = ] | genre = | fate = | predecessor = | successor = | foundation = 2001 | founder = | defunct = | location_city = ] | location_country = ] | location = | locations = | area_served = Global | key_people = | industry = ] | products = | production = | services = Abstract/paper management, publishing online and on CD-ROM | revenue = | operating_income = | net_income = | aum = | assets = | equity = | owner = | num_employees = | parent = | divisions = | subsid = | homepage = http://www.oxfordabstracts.com | footnotes = | intl = }} '''Oxford Abstracts Ltd''' is UK based company that provides a widely used ] system notable for its low ]<ref></ref><ref></ref>. Oxford Abstracts was established in the UK in 2001. The directors are ] and Kim Wilson. The company has an extensive global client base - prominent clients include ]<ref></ref> and the UK's ]. ==References== {{reflist}} ==External links== ] ] ] ]

Foundations of the Spanish kingdoms

Foneio has reinstated the article that you replaced with a redirect. I've replaced the redirect to the History of Spain article. Maybe you could help keep an eye on the article? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Gardening Express

not sure i am posting this in the right place, but here goes. thanks for your feedback on the Gardening Express page. As a plant breeder i feel it important for them to be highlighted here for others to learn about, and it is pleasing that you have found that the article is not an advert, but does need more work to point out the noteworthyness of the organisation. Unfortunately most of the third party information to substantiate the article is offline content, from various journals going back many years. Should I reference these in the normal way and add in to the article? Unfortunately most horticultural trade stuff for which this is worth mentioning on wikipedia is offline, so difficult to point out websites with details of their significance. Also, websites that mention them in the past are renewed as more new material is bought to the fore, so makes it not so easy finding the references you need?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GE100 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You should reference the journals, but please bear in mind the policy at WP:N and also your conflict of interest - it is not generally a good idea to create articles about companies with which you are closely involved. I think it's very likely that the article will be challenged again and may be deleted, unless it's written in a completely neutral manner, has clear encyclopedic value and has obvious notability. andy (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Inappropriate bios"

Please see my comments at the talk page re Maritza Davila:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Maritza_Davila

It is an open question as to what is inappropriate, as well as what is what is a POV assessment of a bio and what is a hasty decision.Dogru144 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not in this case andy (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fawcett Society and Beveridge Report

Hi Andyjsmith, Got your message re Fawcett Society and Beveridge Report. Yes, I see your point. However, I still think the bulk of my contributions were factual, and should be included in wikipedia in revised form/rephrased. I have put proposals on the respective talk pages. Cheers, cagliost (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Brandonblv2's block

A message on his talk page warned him that he was blocked indefinately, but you still warned him that one of his articles was up for speedy deletion. Does this mean that he has NOT been blocked? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• His block and my warning crossed in the post. andy (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Zinstall_XP7 speedy deletion tag

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have just started writing the article - it obviously won't just stay an infobox. Please wait for a day, and then please decide if this is an advert or a legit article. I hope you will find the article improved shortly. Samfranker (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

UPD: I have added content to the article in question. Please tell me if this still violates any standards, and I will fix accordingly. I have recently gave a talk on the subject of virtualization and migration at my uni, and am editing the relevant articles where I see things missing. Zinstall was missing altogether, that's why I had to start it. Please forgive me for lack of experience in editing the articles - I would be very glad if you could verify my other edits are up to par. Many thanks, Sam. Samfranker (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, it's already been deleted. andy (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Are you able to undelete that? It seems another editor just deleted it since it was flagged. I'd really like to have a proper discussion of reasons for deletion of that material, and why my other edits to similar articles do not merit a deletion, although are also on commercial products in that area. Samfranker (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• No I can't as I'm not an administrator. It was deleted by Toddst1 andy (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lindal Moor Cricket Club

This article was deleted in error. They are most definitely notable. Their 125th birthday prompted an article in the North West Mail. I could list many other such articles. I have recreated the article accordingly (though I am not the original creator).GordyB (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me. They didn't look notable first time round. andy (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainty theory

i'm tring to improve it, and thank you for your advices. Please don't delete it for there is no cheat in the article.219.234.81.99 (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• You are welcome to contribute to the deletion debate. In my opinion the article fails several important wikipedia policies. andy (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me to go to "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncertainty theory". I have declared my opinions. Thank you!--Pingfanlj (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainty programming

Will you please delete the article "Uncertainty programming", for there is something wrong with its title, and I have creat a new article named "Uncertain Programming". Thank you lots.Pingfanlj (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've marked it for speedy deletion. andy (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition of hoare capital?

it is well referenced and well established see http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22hoare+capital+markets%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=%22hoare+capital+markets%22&fp=4aad3bc6abb93df5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.65.74 (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't a clue what you're talking about. And I'm not interested either. andy (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. andy (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC) on http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Haabla#Speedy_deletion_of_:Hoare_Capital_Markets_LLP

• I just want to start an article to be honest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.65.74 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. But it's not a subject that interests me. You should start by reading WP:FIRST and if you're stuck you can try the New contributors' help page. andy (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Colonization of Mars

Hi Andy, your revert on Colonization of Mars is perfectly fine, but would you agree with my comment on the talk page regarding the whole sentence? -- The Cascade (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely. It probably comes from an article someplace, but where? andy (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain programming

I protected it against recreation for several weeks. Could you keep track if he tries under a different article name and let me know, and I will block. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK andy (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln Heights Jail

Thank you for noticing that Lincoln Heights Jail was unreferenced. I had added a reference in this edit, but another editor removed it. I have restored the reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. andy (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CASHX

Hi Andy, We are trying to create a page for researchers including ourselves to put information about this new research tool. There are many groups around the world working with and adding to the development of the CASHX pipeline. Also there are many publications in press that will be referencing this tool in the next weeks and months. This is a start page just like the page BLAT_(bioinformatics). Also I am new at this can you tell me what I am missing to make this comply? Thanks. Sullichr (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• .... I guess I give up trying to get this research tool out to the world. This tool is not different then BLAT, BLAST, HMMER and many other research related tools wikipedia has pages on. Thanks anyway. Sullichr (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The issue is one of notability by wikipedia's standards, which this article apparently fails. You're at liberty to recommend other articles for deletion on the same basis. andy (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi and again thanks Andy, there are already two papers PMID:19854858 and PMID:19641088 that cite the main CASHX paper and use the CASHX pipeline. Does this help with the notability standards? Thanks in advance. Sullichr (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, no:

1. The full text of the first article doesn't seem to mention CASHX anywhere

2. The second article is only available to subscribers, but the abstract doesn't mention CASHX

3. In any case neither article is about CASHX - at best in an article of this kind it will get a passing mention. WP:N requires significant coverage which means that "sources address the subject directly in detail"

andy (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Andy, Thanks Again. I do see your point, and I have asked the groups who have asked to post information about CASHX where they are with these information postings as well as the publications that we have in press that do use the "term" CASHX within text. In many of the cases these are scientific peer reviewed journal articles that require much more direction with the research being display and not as much the tools that help them answer the question. Many time tools like this will end up within the "methods" section of the papers and not within the main text. The fact that the CASHX main paper has been referenced twice in less then 8 months in the scientific community is very good, since many papers will never be cited. Please bare with me as I gather the needed information. Thanks Sullichr (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Andy, we have confirmed that http://www.gramene.org will be posting their review of CASHX sometime this week. I will have that reference up as soon as they have release the news article. Sullichr (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Andy, we have updated some references on the CASHX page. At your convenience can you evaluate these for this page and let us know. Thanks again for you time and effort. Sullichr (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Factual Information About Michael lumbs personal life

The removal of factual information, regarding michael lumbs engagement, and interesting trivia regarding his fiance's brother, is all factual and i believe an interesting read, which lightens up a slightly boring article about a respected cricketeer. In no way is it disruptive content. Could you please enlighten me as to why you believe it to be disruptive? The definition of Disruption is "To throw into confusion or disorder." My information regarding Michael lumb, whom i respect, does not throw the article into confusion, it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas191092 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• You have provided no evidence that the statement is true and I am unable to find any. In any case, the article is about Michael Lumb and cricket, not Alexander Hopkin and rugby. Hopkin, who I assume is a schoolmate of yours, does not appear to qualify as a notable person under wikipedia's policy at WP:N. Under these circumstances I am justified in calling your repeated attempts to insert this trivial, irrelevant and unverifiable information disruptive, and I advise you to desist. andy (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zalvar lopez

You've just notified me about this; I didn't create the page, I moved the page to the userpage of the person who wrote the autobio; I guess they then changed it from being a redirect (with R3 CSD) to being a full page again. You may wish to notify them instead. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. andy (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pispalan kumppanuus ry

Prod is only for articles that can be deleted without any doubt. This cannot. If you're worried about its notability (and I must say I'm not convinced) it needs to go to AfD. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. andy (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom Eaton speedy delete

Sorry, I don't fully understand your problem with this page - specifically, why it deserves a speedy delete.

ManicParroT (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• It clearly fails the criteria set out in WP:AUTHOR. He may be a good author but he doesn't yet deserve an encyclopaedia article to himself. andy (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Sexual Humor" article

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:0XQ#Proposed_deletion_of_Sexual_humor ... andy (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC) The reason stated for proposed deletion of this article is gratuitous and inapplicable.0XQ (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think not. andy (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Phygital

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Phygital. I do not think that Phygital fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because a Google search shows that this is not a hoax, although whether it is notable is a different matter. I request that you consider not re-tagging Phygital for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. DES 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User page

Hi Abdy,

  Thanks alot for warning, but can you please inform me what types of trouble I will face.

Yours, --Ece.kassem (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It will be deleted. Soon. andy (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Balancing chemicals

Good job with the redirect. I was redirecting to Stoichiometry but you beat me and your redirect is better. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• So that's the advantage of a Cambridge education, after all these years... :) andy (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting yet another 0XQ page of word salad. More aggressive steps to take?

Greetings, I see you've also been concerned about the many highly-disjointed and "fringe interest" (to put it mildly) articles created by 0XQ. I just put another article of his, Dajjal flag, up for deletion. A small sample of the content:

Yep. So at what point do we say that this editor is an extremely determined hoaxster, or is displaying (too put it as diplomatically as possible) personal traits not appropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh dear! The problem is that there's almost certainly a wikipedia policy against saying that someone should be blocked because they're as mad as a bucket of frogs so I think we'll have to flag it as vandalism (which is what it is) and keep warning him. My turn first. Cheers :) andy (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I realise it's WP policy to avoid any "personal attacks", but suffice to say that said editor's work certainly hasn't been constructive. I don't know the guy from Adam, but his great body of work is a bit disconcerting. In any case, I figure the Dajjal flag piece should get deleted easily, but at some point the overall issue of the editor's misguided efforts should be addressed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've kicked off the process by giving him a general warning, which I think is thoroughly deserved. andy (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Publishing

Translation is an official stage in publishing outside of the UK and the US since most books of this world are written in English. So, I think that that stage should remain under publishing. It is not my POV, but a fact and if you ask any publisher they will agree on that. So it should be noted somewhere under publishing, because it is a major stage which can delay the publishing date by months if the translation is not good. Thank you! (Redmotarder (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

• If you claim that it's an "official" stage you must produce evidence. I don't believe most books in the world are translated into English, which is in any case not the only target language for translation. IMHO the best that you can do is to include some text that says that books may be translated into other languages, with a link to Translation#Literary_translation and some evidence to support any claims you make. andy (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What's happening

Part of the answer to your question can be found in the earliest entries here , and the rest in off-wiki bulletin boards.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• My comment at the AfD was that it was you as nominator who had been accused of being a puppet, whereas the accusation had previously been levelled against the author. I don't understand this - your nomination makes perfect sense to me and I don't like the activities of the author. andy (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look in on the article talk page itself, where the same disruptive accusations are being made. Also I'd like to get your thoughts as to whether the article should be pared down or kept in its original state. Come to think of it, I should probably get input from Wikiproject Law, which is the most applicable project. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite userid JohnnyB256's attempt to poison the well by citing Cla's block log, I think you'll find Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV far more instructive reading. ...because Cla turned out to be right about the whole thing. It was never conclusively proven "OnWiki" that Mantanmoreland was Gary Weiss... but it's commonly accepted as true by most intelligent folk. Mantanmoreland is restricted to one account now, instead of being allowed to sock freely. And restricted to not using proxies. JohnnyB256 has carefully avoided socking and carefully avoided using proxies so if he IS Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland, he's not in violation of the case restrictions. But his POV pushing tendencies are pretty obvious whether he's Weiss or not. Keep that in mind when you read what he has to say. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)