Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:37, 28 March 2010

Jean Guisande

Sorry for the late reply; I was out of town for a few days.

Let me say first that I don't remember how I came across this article; I don't often look at sock investigations or articles tagged with {{hoax}}, as was this one. I'm guessing that my thought process went like this:

• See that it's PRODded and tagged as a hoax
• Check history and note that the hoax tag was added with the edit summary of "{{hoax}} created by indef blocked sock of a user who likes to make hoaxes"
• Look at creator's userpage and note that s/he is blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry
• Delete page

If this is how it went, I probably didn't bother checking the sock investigation and assumed that the situation was as the edit summary went.

Having looked over everything, I understand that this doesn't fit under the criterion that I cited. Nevertheless, I don't believe that it should be undeleted — a likely hoax, created by a blocked sockpuppetteer, about someone who doesn't appear to be notable, and it would likely have been deleted via PROD by now anyway. To me, this seems like a good example of proper usage of IAR. If you disagree, feel free to ask another admin; I'll not consider it wheel warring if another admin undeletes it, even if I'm not notified or if it's not discussed anywhere to get consensus to overturn. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Natacha Merritt

Just a friendly heads up on Natacha Merritt. I removed your prod tag, as the two sources (wired and salon.com) would seem to show notability. If you still think it's not notable, feel free to go to AfD. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Rhomb (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

George Kayatta

I was notified that you had removed the PROD tag I placed on the George Kayatta article, saying that it appeared to be accurate with respect to its sources. I would respectfully submit that I believe the article should still be deleted on several grounds: First, I remain convinced that the article is nothing more than an attempt at self-promotion by Mr. Kayatta himself (note my comment about the "Renaissance Man" designation on the article's talk page); second, as a rider to the first point, the article was originally created by a user who was subsequently banned from WP as a sockpuppet of a banned self-promoter; third, there is a decided lack notability (other than his useless "mathematics", there is nothing noteworthy regarding his other supposed accomplishments, other than the occasional in-print reward that comes with, again, self-promotion). To allow the article to remain is, in my opinion, not in keeping with WP's intended purposes. 3.14 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Kayatta may be a crank but if so he is a notable one -- he's referred to in Underwood Dudley's book for example. The history of the article isn't particularly relevant, since as I said it seems to be accurately written from reliable sources, but I don't think User:Ladnavfan is Kayatta. We should take this discussion to Talk:George Kayatta -- would you object to my copying your comments there? Rhomb (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with moving the discussion to the talk page, although I stand by my belief that preserving the article is not in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. (Sorry for the delay in replying—computer problems.) 3.14 (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up comment to the above: I noticed when I rechecked that page that you had added a couple of edits to the article addressing the issue. I'm glad that the problematic nature of Kayatta's mathematical writings is highlighted, at least. 3.14 (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied to article talk page. Rhomb (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IEauthor responses to your comments

I have 2 user names one HCIE.author and IE.author and helped write the article. What course of action is best--to declare that I am an author in the article?

65.166.54.44 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)IE.author

• Firstly, it's best to stick to a single user name unless there's some good reason. Secondly, make it clear that your user names are the same person. Thirdly, if you do have a connection with the subject of the article, mention the connection on the talk page when you move the artile into the main article space. Most importantly, remember that you don't own" the article and let other people lick it into shape after you've put it out there. Rhomb (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Just so I am clear, I should only use IE.author account to avoid confusion with 2nd account. If an administrator can delete the HCIE.author account, that would helpful.

65.166.54.44 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)IEauthor

Just stop using it, that's enough. Rhomb (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bleh

If I restore the Jata article, will you AfD it for me? I'm not in the mood. DS (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's back. Go do it. DS (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

George Kayatta

Sorry, I had meant to notify you of the AfD. I must have forgotten -- I'm glad you still found your way there.

The COI is just that User:Renaissance bloke appears to be George Kayatta himself. Possibly also relevant: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ladnavfan/Archive.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Actually I think it unlikely that User:Renaissance bloke was Kayatta: as you point out he was one of a family of sockpuppets, mainly adding hoax articles. I think Kayatta was the "cover story". Rhomb (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. But the AfD has largely ignored the issue of COI, so it appears to be moot. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As you say, moot. COI need not be a reason for deletion, the question is whether an NPOV article is capable of being written. Personally I think the answer is yes, and that it's moving heathily in that direction Rhomb (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be. And that's fine with me -- I just thought that this was an article whose future needed to be determined by the community. (I think you would agree on this point...?) Whatever decision is made will satisfy me.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI

I've no idea who you are, but I wanted to thank you for your recent support in that spurious SPI . Between you and DGG, my faith in Misplaced Pages justice has been restored (to some extent, at least). Simon Kidd (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all -- glad to have been able to help. Rhomb (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "an alternate account for privacy"

Could you please elaborate on why you felt it necessary to create this account, "for privacy", in late 2009, when you already have another? J.216.241.55.204 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, for privacy. So no, no elaboration. Rhomb (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was it necessary to maintain "privacy" by creating an alternate account? J.216.241.55.204 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem so keen on being evasive, could you please answer this question. What will you lose by revealing your main account on your user page?216.241.55.204 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to discuss this matter. Please do not ask again. Rhomb (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You seem to have hardly edited wikipedia. I will probably forward details of your account to the Checkuser that I contacted about Quotient group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I might also forward your name to the arbitrator that found that I was being wikistalked - it was Shell Kinney (talk · contribs). You could contact her directly, but your choice of subjects to edit, such as Masturbation aid, will not place you in a particularly favourable light. Indeed you might yourself be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet and could find your editing privileges restricted if you are not careful. I hope this is clear. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. No good deed ever goes unpunished. Well, I tried. Rhomb (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've passed on your name to the Checkuser. You tried a little too hard. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. It turns out that was not what Shell Kinney did. Rhomb (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What makes you say that? You might want to contact Nishkid64. You seem to be a little inexperienced as far as wikipedia is concerned. Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, because that's what Shell Kinney says here. Now I suggest this is going nowhere. I've said my piece and you've replied with insults and threats. This is exactly what I was counselling you against. This conversation is over. Rhomb (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, we'll wait to see what Checkuser says. Shell Kinney also questioned why you turned up at my talk page. What you describe as "counselling" was more like "trolling" and wikihounding from my point of view. What "insults" are you referring to? I think you are also obliged to specify your main account on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

A checkuser has determined that Quotient group (talk · contribs), Matilda (talk · contribs) and Maud (talk · contribs) are very likely sockpuppets of A.K.Nole (talk · contribs); and that Dewey process (talk · contribs) and Rhomb (talk · contribs) are probably sockpuppets of Mister Collins (talk · contribs). The information from checkuser will now be passed onto a member of the arbitration committee and some accounts might be blocked as a consequence. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)