Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:12, 21 April 2010

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

Gastrich, PRT, October 2005, December 2005, January 2006, January 2006a, February 2006, February 2006a, March 2006, April 2006, May 2006, June 2006, July 2006, September 2006, October 2006, November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, February 2007, March 2007, April 2007, May 2007, June 2007, July 2007, August 2007, October 2007, December 2007, January 2008, February 2008, March 2008, April 2008, May 2008, June 2008, July 2008, August 2008, September 2008, October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009, February 2009, March 2009, April 2009, May 2009, June 2009, July 2009

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile

JDB

You deleted my page. Apparently I am to contact you that I am going to make another page. I don't understand who you are or what is going on, but I am following the rules so I can stop wasting my time! Can you help me?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Piesiak (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bell, your access to this page should be restored. Please be aware that we can and will deal only with two specific types of request here:

• Present and ongoing violations of our policy on biographies
• Factual errors, either unsourced material or corrections sourced from reliable independent sources

Issues of past conduct will be handled only by the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee. I have already asked that they review the conduct of all parties, myself included.

Any legal complaints, including (specifically) complaints of libel will be handled only by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal advisers, whose contact details I believe you have but are available at http://wikimediafoundation.org/Contact_us - we have an absolute prohibition on legal threats so please respect this restriction.

You also have an email address and ticket reference. The same applies there. We will deal with present and ongoing misconduct, and provable factual errors. I'm afraid we have to be firm on this as otherwise any attempt at resolution will rapidly become bogged down. Those of us who man the OTRS queues are committed to fixing problems here-and-now, we cannot, for a lot of reasons, get into long term issues. I hope you can understand why that is. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

An uncivil policy

Jim Bell, a potentially invaluable contributor to Misplaced Pages with unique insights, was indefinitely banned after a grand total of 67 edits over less than a month, for "Incivility, personal attacks and general disruption". He was primarily interested in expressing his own point of view about his own article, which sounds a lot like one long personal attack.

It is clear that some of his edits diverged from Misplaced Pages editorial guidelines, but what happened to WP:BITE? Where is WP:AGF (or WP:BLP, or WP:NPA) when editors at ANI talk about him as if he were a terrorist? Every common vandal who replaces the text of an article with the word "penis" gets blocked three or four times before the blocks go up to months or a year. Someone could have tried to work with him to make things right.

Now I should point out that other less famous but more wealthy citizens receive a very different reception - for example, I've just come from debating at length against the deletion of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo. Sources such as a U.S. Senate committeee majority and minority report were cited, but administrators claim that these cannot be mentioned, because explaining what these sources say would make it an "attack article". (see Talk:Jimbo Wales#At the margins) It looks like there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor on Misplaced Pages, like anywhere else.

I also am rather disgusted by the notice that Bell has used "sockpuppets". His "sockpuppets" are just a list of IP addresses he edited from after his account was blocked. That's "evading a block", yes, but it has nothing to do with the multi-voting and multi-RRs and faked discussions that are implied when people speak of "sockpuppets" in the traditional Usenet sense of the term.

Misplaced Pages is shrinking, and there's a reason - because pompous, rude policy templates, automated notices, threats, and overwrought disciplinary procedures have been allowed to drive away interested newbies. Bell is the third or fourth such trampled newbie I've encountered in the past week - any one of which, properly greeted, would likely have been more productive for the project than I am. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please actually take time to read up on all relevant material. He was not blocked for expressing his view on his article. He was blocked for insulting everyone that tried to help him.— Dædαlus 01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How many insults can you make in 67 edits? And isn't a permanent ban kind of ... insulting? Wnt (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"How many insults can you make in 67 edits?", in response, you obviously didn't read his WP:TLDR rants. Bell was shown plenty of WP:AGF by several editors. He didn't end up banned because of his misunderstood overtures for peace and love. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What kind of civility are you showing when you use some cute acronym to make fun of the fact that you're not reading what an editor says? I have to wonder whether Jim Bell was really being any more offensive than the people he was responding to. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I read them when he was posting them, and was one of the editors who tried to offer helpful advice and pointers to appropriate policy pages to help clear up his misunderstandings concerning our editing policies. I was remarking on the fact that maybe you hadn't read them because of their length. As for the 67 edits, he also IP socked quit a few more after his block. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Plenty. His posts were tl;dr, but that doesn't mean we didn't read them. If you're not going to help, then why bother contributing. The only thing you've done since you've got here is throw around baseless accusations. If you aren't going to take the time to read through all relevant material, don't bother commenting.— Dædαlus 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, my main objection is that when I read his block log, the first block is an indefinite ban still ongoing. I don't think a user under 100 edits should ever get an indefinite ban - they should get a series of brief bans to give them time to stand back and reconsider. And I haven't even accused anyone of anything. I just wish WP:BITE had some teeth. Wnt (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, can we move this conversation somewhere else? I doubt this is improving his mood. --NeilN 04:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually you did, you accused us of biting a newbie when all we had been was nice to him. We weren't rude, we weren't uncivil. We calmly tried to explain policy to him, and all we got were cries of abuse.— Dædαlus 04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here, since you refuse to read before commenting, I've found some insults for you, in his last contribution to this page, no less:

• Read the damn article, 'Jim Bell', if you numbskulls want to understand WHY
• In fact, I want most of you to (first) stop interfering and abuse, and (second) go away

As a note, none of us who have tried to help this user were ever abusive to them.

For the below, he continuously refers to 'the abuse by Dodo' and 'the abuse by others'. He has also, numerous times called us meatpuppets, just because we tried to explain to him why his edits were reverted(they violated BLP as they were negative material without a source, and calling the material 'negative' is light for what it was)

• Also, Falcon falsely accused me of falsely accusing Dodo of being a puppet. Actually, the reality (remember reality, guys?) is that Dodo was the first 'control freak' to even show up,
• At that time, I hadn't even heard the term, 'sock puppet': I believe that I first read of it from somebody else's message. So, as I (now) understand your word-usage, Dodo wasn't the 'sock puppet': Hypothetically, someone else would have been called 'sock puppet', one who (seemed to) follow Dodo's footsteps. But I now understand that there's another term, 'meat puppet', a term that I haven't seen explicitly defined, but appears to be a person who (sorta secretly) is brought in to back up the opinions of another person. Somewhat like happened after I began to criticize Dodo for repeatedly reverting my edits without allowing any consensus to develop! Such a coincidence!

Calling us meatpuppets because he was violating BLP and was surprised when people started reverting him. We have tried to explain numerous times that he doesn't get his way before consensus is achieved, not after.

• Falcon was especially clueless when he said, "Gogo Dodo had an issue with one of your edits, clearly. Well, then, explain that calmly and politely and ask their views on why it wasn't useful to Misplaced Pages. If you had done that, you would not have found yourself blocked (banning is entirely separate to blocking)".

Do I really need to explain this one? He calls another editor clueless.

• I take strong exception to 'falcon's' abusive article. But weeks ago, I realized that the rest of the control freaks won't do anthing about this: The way they didn't do anything about Dodo, or Daedalus, etc. At least, 'falcon' admitted, right off the bat, that he didn't know 'anything' about me! Big mistake. If WP worked in anything like a logical fashion, 'falcon' would have been ejected, permanently, for knowingly and intentionally commenting in an area he knew nothing about, to a person he admitted he knew nothing about, based on a history (4 weeks, approx) that he also knows nothing about.

This one's great. Here he suggests that a user be indefblocked for commenting on an article he wasn't familiar with. Right.

So again, instead of commenting here, telling us we bit this user, when we did no such thing, and then claiming they never attacked anyone(when they quite clearly did), read all relevant material. Read all of his posts, then come back and comment only after you have done so. The above came from a single diff. His last contribution to this page.— Dædαlus 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which person bit the newbie, or whether it is bad Misplaced Pages policy or procedure in general; only that he was bitten. I have not named any specific wrongdoer(s) because I don't understand exactly what happened. I just know that what happened can't be right. Wnt (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the guy who invented "assassination politics" and who spent 10 yrs in federal prison upon a conviction for intimidating and stalking the family members of federal agents couldn't possibly be at fault in this situation? Even if his initial contact on WP was a BITE, he had plenty of helping hands offered afterward, which he declined to accept. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a tip, stop claiming that any of us bit this person. None of us did. Were were civil with him, when all he did is cry abuse and cry for bans of anyone that tried to help him. Don't say that any of us bit him, unless you can back it up with a diff, but I'm quite sure you will never find such a diff, as it never happened.— Dædαlus 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen an edit war on Misplaced Pages that doesn't involve comparable amounts of abuse. I'm sorry, but "numskulls", "clueless" and such are not even the harshest words I've seen uttered in anger around here. I do recognize that most of you (and in particular those currently replying here) spoke civilly, though there were some who did not - e.g. from the final ANI we have things like "Nobody's gonna bother even reading the above as it comes across as a rant." and "Then there is a very long rant about how he is being harassed and there is a conspiracy against him by some unknown group or individual, which to be frank I gave up reading because I've read this sort of drivel on hundreds, if not thousands, of long winded posts from people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works" I think that the main "bite" was that Bell was hit with an indefinite ban for incivility when people are talking to him like that in the ANI itself!

For the record, I should add that I do recognize that we cannot add unsourced material about living persons based only on the assumption that the user is actually the subject of the article; nor can we cite a telephone call or an e-mail. I am also highly suspicious that Bell's "discovery" of isotopic differences in the infrared spectrum amounts to anything more than his (mis)reading of some sources - I doubt he measured the absorption personally. I recognize that even if he cited these sources in their appropriate article, he could not have added the "original research" connecting them under Misplaced Pages policy. However, had he started a website in his own name, he could have cited that as a primary source and used it, per BLP, to cite a statement about what he was saying. This is not that far from his original intent.

Though it is irrelevant at this point I'll also mention that I wish I had convenient online access to but I suspect that they would show that while there are differences in frequency of absorption that the overall effect on infrared would be similar. But I can't say that without looking. And doing isotopic separation on carbon monoxide can't be cheap enough to be practical. I think that prison has deprived him of a chance to make the intellectual advances his mind is designed to accomplish, producing such disorientation until he can accumulate more data.

That said, I find that the more I read the more sympathy I find I have for his raw and innocent outrage at the rapid and total reverting of content that occurs around here with no attempt made to salvage the point. The blizzard of policies with which newbies are hit is indeed confusing, especially when OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used to tell them that they can't complain if they're the only one targeted. I just ran into a different newbie trample at User:VictimsWife in which an editor tried to add content that was objected to for encyclopedic reasons - in her case I was around and was able to rephrase and cite some parts of her content that I found before they were deleted, in such a way that they then were left intact, but in the meanwhile we lost another contributor. Wnt (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't agree with "...had he started a website in his own name, he could have cited that as a primary source and used it, per BLP, to cite a statement about what he was saying". BLP is not a license to turn your article into a WP:SOAPBOX which would happen to thousands of articles if we followed your interpretation unquestioningly. BLP is balanced by WP:SELFPUB and WP:REDFLAG and, to a certain extent, WP:SPIP. --NeilN 10:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD)He was talking like that before the ANI thread was even created. The incivility Bell met on ANI only happened after people grew tired of him calling everyone who tried to explain policy to him a meatpuppet. Again, instead of accusing us of things, like biting this user, which we haven't done, why don't you read all relevant material. Why don't you read Dodo's reply to him, on this very page, which not only explained policy, but did so extraordinarily politely after Bell was abusive to him on his talk page.— Dædαlus 06:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about this other case, or even if it has any similarities to this one. But if that newbie was trampled, it doesn't mean it also happened in this case. As for the bewildering preponderance of things you need to learn to edit, I've been on WP for 2 years, and I don't think there is much more to learn now than when I started. Bell seems like a very intelligent guy, I'm sure if inclined he could have picked it up as well, probably faster than I did. He was not so inclined. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

@Wnt, with respect, you have no real idea of the background on either of these cases. This much is obvious from your input.

I am not prepared to discuss the details of the Bell case on-wiki because I can't without violating privacy (of several people) and causing even more drama, I referred it to the Arbitration Committee some time ago for review and I still think that was the right thing to do. This much I will say: in my opinion his comments were overboard but for understandable reasons; however, having exchanged a fair number of emails with him I do not think that any amount of kindness and patience would result in his becoming a productive member of the community, I think he is temperamentally unsuited to the Misplaced Pages environment. And yes that is a shame because he has, as you say, a unique perspective. If you want to track down some other OTRS volunteers whose opinion you respect and ask them to verify what I say then you are free to do so, you can also email the Arbitration Committee to express your views on this, I am sure they will give you some sort of reply.

As to Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, I have no real opinion on whether a neutral, sourced, compliant biography could be written, but I do know that this wasn't one which is why Coren deleted it. I will note in passing that when someone is emailing you in obvious distress, telling them to wait a week while we examine our navels is not a very satisfactory response, but discussion does not belong here and is indeed underway elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - I understand that you and other OTRS people may have your own history with him, and I can sympathize: the thing is, I don't really think of that as part of Misplaced Pages. If I can't know the full story about something then I don't even want to pay attention to it. And while everyone says that they made so much effort to help this person, so far I haven't seen any sign that someone even tried to rephrase his contributions to pass WP guidelines the way I did (to a limited extent) with VictimsWife . So I don't feel like people really tried hard enough. I don't see what the harm would be in unbanning him every three to six months and seeing what happens, even if it does mean that four or five nasty comments slip into our bottomless talk archives each time. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OTRS volunteers are tasked with helping people, and I am doing my best to help Mr. Bell. I can't say he's the most co-operative customer I've ever had, but neither is he the worst, and I can see his perspective quite easily even while simultaneously seeing the problems pointed out by others here. I actually don't think it would be in his best interests to be unblocked (a view with which I know he strongly disagrees) because I am pretty confident that the result would be a flame war which would end with no chance of him ever being unblocked. At least this way once the article is fixed it might be safe to unblock him. I've asked ArbCom to review all conduct, including mine, and I've also noticed that there is some discussion on the Foundation wiki about a proposal which is informed by this case and other recent incidents. I strongly encourage anyone reading this to review the article in detail and make or propose improvements. That is, I think, the most important thing here. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A comment from Jim Bell:

It sounds to me like one MAJOR improvement you (WP) need is a declaration that BLP policy is not "optional": It is utterly mandatory, and --->anybody<--- who becomes aware of a BLP violation MUST act immediately to repair it. It is not a matter about which one can 'volunteer' to do (or fail to 'volunteer'). Anybody who fails to do so needs to be blocked for a month or two, and anybody who tries to cover it up (as NeilN did on WP:BLPN a few weeks ago; including reverting material which violates BLP) needs to be blocked for at least 1 year. Once the first dozen Administrators get blocked, I think the word will get around.
BTW, make the policy RETROACTIVE.

Posted by request. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I "covered it up" by explaining my rationale here: Talk:Jim_Bell#Edits_not_neutral. Keystroke came up with alternate wording and Ravensfire later agreed completely with one of my points. Again, Bell is trying to block anyone who doesn't agree with his point of view - subjects of BLP articles don't get to solely decide what is a BLP violation. --NeilN 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BLP already non-negotiable? —Jeremy 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if a subject doesn't like something in their article (which is sourced), is that a BLP violation? --NeilN 23:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, and his suggestion about how to handle it is nothing but disruptive.— Dædαlus 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent conversations have left me very perplexed what the BLP policy really is. Originally I thought it was very simple: any good source you can find, you describe, trying to cover all sides fairly. But in a variety of long discussions including some at Talk:Jimbo Wales I've been presented with a very different view of WP:BLP where editors look at all the sources and judge which allegations are confirmed or unreliable, and where even articles that are well sourced but entirely negative get deleted. See WP:ATTACK versus WP:BLP#Attack pages. The result, as I commented above and at User talk:Coren#Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, is that I don't see any large difference between a largely negative page that was speedy-deleted and the largely negative Jim Bell page. So while I wanted to keep both pages, I feel as if the policy as presently enforced would support the outright deletion of both. So how do I improve the Jim Bell article? I just don't know. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really not see the difference between an article which only serves to disparage its subject and an article which neutrally describes a subject's controversial activities? Are, for example, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling and Manuel Noriega attack articles? --NeilN 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, Jimbo himself not merely supported deletion, but said there was no way to make it neutral without extra off-line or French language research, despite at least five reliable sources to quote, because they were all about controversies. So I really don't know where the line is supposed to be now. Wnt (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because they were tabloid stories about not much or primary sources which were then interpreted by Misplaced Pages editors in a way not fully supported by the source. Jim Bell, by contrast, seems to me to have actively courted publicity and set himself up as a figure in the public eye. Nothing wrong with that, you just have to be prepared for the fact that not everything everybody says about you will be flattering. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One lesson from this might be that even if someone is acting irate, their critical concerns about an article should be investigated regardless of their demeanor, even if they are to be banned. Keystroke (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Transcluded from user talk:James dalton bell in case of comments by article subject. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Johannes Maas

You have deleted a new article on which I was working and adding notability. Please put a copy of the deleted article on my talk page. รัก-ไทย (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Might take me a while, but you do know this has been deleted more than once before, don't you? Guy (Help!) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you please take a look at all the moving about and consider protecting this page? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a frriendly reminder of my request for the Johannes Maas page which I created, and which you deleted before new references on notability could be added. Further, regarding the protection request here, this editor, to my knowledge, is not one of the contributors to this article. My interest in the page was merely an attempt to clarify the name, as both men who have this name are relatives, and in my opinion, both are notable. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Too much drama. I can email it as long as you promise not to bring it back here. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Conservapedia

I have an issue regarding Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues. May I contact you privately? Thank you. nobs (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Feel free. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am being pressured to act hastily, the basic outline of problems can be seen here in this exchange between myself and one of several founders of Rationalwiki. User_talk:Nobs01#Stepping_back_from_the_brink. Shortly after I made this request to you, another RW founder, who is cited by name in the Conservapedia article, became actively involved in discussion. nobs (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a sample of what the non-public materials look like. I can't prepare them for wiki format on a user subpage at Rationalwiki as they've blocked my account and Conservapedia has Rationalwiki on its spamblock list. Would it be appropriate to prepare the non-public material on a user subpage in Misplaced Pages? The materials are quite extensive, do not out real life identities (or if such an occasion arose, I would edit out any such section). The raw data needs some explanation and context given. nobs (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, please loop me in on this, as I am drafting an aribtration request currently. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The link has been nuked. You can email me directly, nobs, or you can email the arbitrators. Non-public information can be submitted by email during arbitrations as well. But fundamentally I reckon nobody's reputation is going to be materially damaged by using one word versus another to describe the obvious raids by RationalWiki on Conservapedia. And indeed Conservapedia actively set themselves up for it by exemplifying MPOV as they do. If someone came to me for a job and said they had been accused of winding Schlafly up I'd count it in their favour. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It will take a few days to review and prepare the most relevent content. The issue ultimately surrounds an active hoax perpetrated by the founders of Rationalwiki against a mainstream journalist who now is being cited as a reliable source for a Misplaced Pages article. As I've said repeatedly, the whole matter can be disposed of by stripping out reference to persons from that reliable source.

I'll take to heart the link you provided. I think in the end everybody can live happily ever after on all three wikis. And I'll continue to try to be a voice of moderation within the CP project and hopefully restore the cordial relationships I once enjoyed with Rationalwiki editors. nobs (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Block

What exactly has User:Fred the Oyster been blocked for, please? Parrot of Doom 14:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• We have an individual who has complained to OTRS about user conduct around articles discussing him and his work, and after several comments asking him to tone down the rhetoric he made a comment about "American Jewish weasels" on the talk page of the WP:BLP of the complainant. Which was frankly rather stupid and smacked very much of WP:POINT if not outright WP:BATTLE. Since he did not seem to be taking comments on board, I gave him what is basically a shot across the bows. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Obviously I cannot comment on the OTRS complaints, but right now it may appear to some as though Fred is blocked not for his initial comment, but for his subsequent comments to you. I strongly suggest you take a look through Fred's comments on other user talk pages; you'd find that he has a rather oblique sense of humour. If he meant a personal attack, I'm sure that the recipient would have been left in no doubt about it. Fred is a regular contributor to User:Malleus Fatuorum's talk page, who just happens to be rather well known for rescuing and authoring Ferret legging. That, I suspect, may be where the Weasel and Ferret comments have arisen. He has a sharp tongue (like most Northerners) but there's no malice. Parrot of Doom 15:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not the case. He is blocked for his commentary on Black, after he had been asked several times to tone it down. He may assert it was humour, but I don't read it as that, and even if it was intended as humour it was spectacularly ill-judged. His talk page access was revoked because of his comments to me, I did not do that and did not ask for it to be done. The history is pretty clear; I don't think I have any prior interaction with him. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps these requests require a level of clearance I do not possess then, because I've looked and haven't been able to find much. I'm not demanding or expecting anything, I just thought that what I read on Fred's talk page, and the comment regarding the Ferret, did not deserve a block. Fair enough if there's more to it. Parrot of Doom 15:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What requests? WP:OTRS requests? No, you don't have access to those, but the concern was noted quite clearly. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I realise you're under no real obligation to do this, but would you mind pointing out exactly where Fred was warned about his conduct, before his block? Parrot of Doom 13:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell Talk page re: BLP

Hi Guy - since you took such an unbiased view of the Jim Bell issue I was wondering if you could comment on my BLP question on the Jim Bell page or point me in the right direction for receiving unbiased advice & feedback. It is really a tricky article for me to be starting my Misplaced Pages edits with. Thanks! Keystroke (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin Guignard

Hi Guy, Thanks for the help! But, I was told that if someone else was to make a wikipedia page about me it's ok, but it seems that no one else can write it... Can you help me? Thanks! --Justin Guignard (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

While you are at it, could you delete some of those S/M adult porn star pages also?

• Few things would give me greater pleasure. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to create a page for "Shelby American Collection", a museum in Colorado, USA. I am new at this but really interested to get everything right. I would like to have a page up that at least says one or two facts about the place and how important they are in regards to the preservation of the vehicle and what they have in their collection, is there any way that you can restore the page so I can take everything out but some basic facts. I will not persist without your approval, but so far I have not backed up anything and all the info seems to be lost. Gabe Lee (talk) 16:09:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Shumayel86

I just noticed that he's editing again at the same locations as before. They have blanked one section completely and removed the comments of others on a talk page and replaced them with his own. I guess I'm happy that they at least went to the talk page first to discuss a change. The rest of their edits seem ok. Just wanted to give you a heads up. OlYeller 14:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ho hum, another game of whack-a-mole. Honestly? This guy has a highly skewed idea of the importance of his own POV (like, for example, his insistence on the Urdu/Hindi Pathan rather than the much more widely used Pashto Pashtun). Guy (Help!) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hedley Hazelden

Hi JzG

I added something to this article and noticed you had done some work on it back in 2007. I was wondering what your source was as it would be good to improve the article further. Best wishes and thanks for any help you can give. --John (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

HP house magazine, the HP museum in Woodley, Reading and some material from the HP Association. Dad ran a section in the test house at Radlett during development of the Victor. He and Eric Abbott knew Hazel quite well. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Dad Guy (Help!) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing. Did you ever meet him? I came upon the story in a book by my favorite aviation writer Andrew Brookes and admit I was slightly miffed that there was an article there already when I went to write it. Are any of the HP documents available online? --John (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No I never met him, sadly. The HPA Archive is in a state of uncertainty last I heard from Gerry Cullen; some people wanted it to go to the Herts library service, others to the National Aviation Archive. I will have to ifnd out where it ended up. The Museum of Berkshire Aviation in Reading are very friendly and helpful, though, you can find them at http://home.comcast.net/~aero51/html/index.htm - they have a display on Hazel in their Dart Herald, dad got out of his wheelchair and up the steps into the Herald to look at it (he'd had several strokes by then) Thanks for reminding me of a great day out with the old man :-) Incidentally, is this a good time to mention that I once wire brushed the manifolds of W4050? Guy (Help!) 09:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean this? That is cool, it is a favorite plane of mine, the "Wooden Wonder". I once sat in the cockpit of XM597, but that isn't quite as cool. Next time I am in the UK I plan to try to visit the Berks facility. Cheers, --John (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The very same. I used to volunteer at that museum when I was at school. If you come to UK to visit the Berkshire Aviation Museum, look me up, I live close by. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will if I possibly can. --John (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Summer Watson

Hi, thank you for your message!

I edited the Summer Watson page for the first time in March 2010, and I have understood that now there are some problems with my edits? I have given appropriate references for all the information I have put on the page, so, there really should not be any problems. If any of the information is wrong, there should be revisions with new, more accurate references, am I right?

According to several sources, including Music Week, Summer Watson's real forename is/was Rachel, and that she was 26 years old as of 2003. None of the sources say Rachel is her middle name. Watson's alleged relationships with high profile men, especially with HRH Prince Andrew, have been a major part of her public image in Britain, and therefore, I put the information on the page, under the headline "Personal". Also, I put on the page that Watson has had her own Trust, which raised money for her, giving an example of how the Trust raised money, and telling that HRH Prince Andrew served as one of the trustees, as this topic was well covered in the British media.

It seems that for some image-related reasons, Watson or/and her associates want to control the Misplaced Pages article.

And by the way, I am not "an obsessive fan", nor am I "stalking" Summer Watson in any way. After I got her album and took a listen, I decided to improve her Misplaced Pages page the best way I could, and I think I was able to create a comprehensive article. Sosoprano (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Do let me know, when I am free to edit the Summer Watson article again, if I feel the need. I also think that there should be an appropriate source for the claim that Watson was born as Summer Rachel Watson as it seems that all the available sources say Rachel is Watson's real name, or her former name, not her middle name. Sosoprano (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, thank you for your answer! How about my other questions and points I have made concerning the article?

- If any of the information I have put on the page with references is wrong, there should be revisions with new, more accurate references, yes? Now there have been revisions, but no sources.

- Have you took into account that Watson or/and her associate might want to control the Misplaced Pages article as they please, because of some image-related reasons? Not a single source place Watson's date of birth in the 1980s, as, it seems, she or her associate (71.143.157.136) edited without any references. The same user has also unedited several times some other information on the page (Summer Watson Trust, all the indications to HRH Prince Andrew). All the information I put on the page was included with appropriate references, and all those details have been a major part of Watson's public image in Britain.

Anyway, thank you for your help and keeping the site in order!

Sosoprano (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your input on this is not welcome, I'm afraid. You are a single-purpose account whose editing has caused embarrassment to the project and complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation. You're done with this subject. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I am sorry to say this, but you are not being fair now.

1. There was an article on Summer Watson here on Misplaced Pages, before I found it. I did not create it.

2. After I got Watson's debut album and took a listen, I googled her. After seeing her Misplaced Pages article, I decided to improve it as its quality was very poor. There were absolutely no references used for any information on the page. None.

3. I improved the article by using various sources, adding a lot of information about Watson's background, education, musical career, her debut album, and her other adventures etc. I also mentioned her connection to HRH Prince Andrew as it has been a major part of her public image in Britain. Watson first came into the public spotlight because of her connection with HRH Prince Andrew. What kind of relationship they had/have, I do not know, nor do I care.

4. I hesitated whether I should mention that Watson has been publicly linked to other high profile men in Britain as well. But as she has publicly talked about her relationship with HRH Prince Andrew to Daily Mail, she kind of opened that field of her life to the public. And as she has not been in the press because of her musical career that much since 2003, but because of her possible affairs, I thought it would be okay to mention that after being linked to HRH Prince Andrew, she has also been linked to other famous men in Britain. Besides, there are similar mentions all over Misplaced Pages on various singers and other entertainers' articles.

5. I also wrote that Watson was born as Rachel Watson as I found several sources saying Rachel is her real name, or her former name. One of the sources is Music Week, a music industry magazine, which wrote about the name in 2003, when they reviewed Watson's showcase performance. Music Week is also one of the sources that place Watson's date of birth in the 1970s, in 1977 or 1978. None of the sources place her date of birth in the 1980s.

6. After I had improved the article, everything was fine. ALL the information I put on the page was added with appropriate references, and all the information I put on the page was appropriate ipso facto. I did not invent any lies, nor was I trying to promote Watson. I just wanted to create a versatile and objective article.

7. Suddenly, someone (71.143.157.136) started to unedit some of my edits, but the user did not provide ANY reasons, nor did the user provided ANY, more accurate references. The user changed the date of birth (no references were given), the user changed the birth name (no references were given), the user enedited all the information about HRH Prince Andrew without any explanation, although HRH Prince Andrew has been a major part of Watson's public image in Britain.

Now, how my editing has been causing any embarrassment? All the information I put on the page was put there with references. And all the information I put on the page was appropriate. I did not invent lies, nor did I add any information that was absolutely unnecessary. It is not that I had been editing the page with no references, or that I had been adding things that have nothing to do with the article.

And of course I am lacking of any other activity on Misplaced Pages as I was still in the middle of my first project with the Summer Watson article. One cannot start editing on Misplaced Pages by already having a wondeful history of edits.

Please, do pay attention to this matter properly. I think it is offensive to say that my edits have caused embarrassment to the project as one can obviously see that my edits certainly have not. No invented lies, no information without appropriate references, no details that are not suitable, no insults, no promotion..

Sosoprano (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• What part of "no" were you having trouble understanding? I don't care what our motives were, I was assuming good faith on that, but how they appeared to the subject is of importance to us as a project. Just ifnd something else to work on, please. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the quick reply! And thank you for the "how they appeared to the subject is of importance to us as a project" part of your answer, because now I get it. Have a great summer!

Sosoprano (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP Ban

You mentioned blacklisting mrskin.com at the BLP Ban discussion at AN/I. I know I've requested adding stuff to the global blacklist before but I can't remember anymore how I did it. Do you know? If you can refresh my memory I'll put in the request. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I did that locally but yes feel free to request on the global blacklist, it's at m:talk:Spam blacklist. I can't think of a single valid encyclopaedic use for that site. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I will request it. It's basically a porn site, so certainly of little use to us here! <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

BIU MedCab case

Hi JzG, there's a MedCab case that you probably should be aware of concerning Bircham International University. Also there's a new account Raissa Rouse (talk · contribs) that self identifies as acting on behalf of BIU, which has started to edit the article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, perhaps you can provide some insight related to the questions I raised at PhilKnight's talk page regarding the recent history of the BIU article. --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Flightpath Charter Airways

• Flightpath Charter Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You deleted my page again. What can I do to prevent that from happening again? I do not understand why mine is being deleted when there are so many others similar to mine. ?? Can you please explain what is going on? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.96.26 (talk • contribs)

Your article has been deleted because it is advertorial and because the subject is eligible for deletion as making no claim to notability. There is also an obvious conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

David Bell

I've started this stub, because I think he is notable. Perhaps you could cast your BLP eye over it and check for any obvious errors or areas for improvement (ie without adding significant new material at this stage). I'm going to see if I can confirm and find cites for his school and LBS, which I got from the articles on those subjects. If not I'll ask for references in those articles and take them out of the biography (I'll know today). I didn't find David a complaining type, but he's a stickler for accuracy and it's always worth a review by a second pair of eyes! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• It could use the Order of knighthood and a cite to the London Gazette citation, we can have a look for some other profiles around the place. A tad dry, but I like dry in a biography :-) Guy (Help!) 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added a mention of his family to make it a little less dry ;-) Each wikilink has a whole article about it. There are so many references I can't even find one yet giving more detail about his knighthood. PS Worth was valid, but LSE was a namesake. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If you get a chance, I wonder if you could check why the cite for Common Purpose from their website was blacklisted. I've put the address in the talk page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• , I can whitelist a single homepage url if you like. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• They don't seem to be innately evil - just a tad too empowering for WP perhaps at some point in the past. If you can whitelist a single page, I think David Bell's biography is not likely to be subject of spam, seeing as he didn't even have an article until yesterday. The URL is www.commonpurpose.org.uk/about/governance/david-bell. It has some useful information about his retiring from the FT, which I didn't spot anywhere else. Either that, or take a risk and give them another chance in case the IP has moved on, I don't feel strongly about that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Added to whitelist. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I can see now that Common Purpose is part of the global conspiracy, with the Prince of Darkness exposed at its pinnacle, so that probably explains the blacklist. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hey Guy. While patrolling new pages and pages up for speedy deletion, I ran across an article for Madison Eagles. An IP user had removed the db-g4 tag once without explaining so I replaced it. Another IP removed it with an explanation so I left it off. Another user, Justa Punk then replaced the db-g4 tag stating that " you can not remove this tag. You must follow the instructions for contesting it." I removed the db tag as the state is not true. I removed it again stating that his comment wasn't true and that I also declined the speedy as a recent championship title had been won. Justa reapplied the db tag stating that the IP was a sock of the article's creator. I removed the db tag yet again stating that I declined the speedy and that his accusation was irrelevant. All info above can be verified here. I then took it to the talk page stating that the new championship title was at least a claim of notability and that another AfD would be needed. The IP began commenting and Justa immediately began implying that the IP was a sock of the author and somehow related to the subject of the article. He then claimed to have initiated a checkuser. I was interested in following the investigation so I checked his contribution history and found to proof of an investigation being instigated. I then asked him where the investigation was and accused him of misleading the IP. He became defensive and refused to share where the investigation was taking place. That info can be checked here.

I then took it to the user's talk page. I accused him of bullying and misleading the IP which I admit was brash. I decided to take a break from the situation at the behest of another user until recently when I saw that Justa and the IP were edit warring over the reliability of a blog. The IP and I both agree that it's at least reliable enough to be used as a reference for the small bit of information it cites (it's a blog owned by Sun-Times Media Group).

Today, a new IP user shows up on the page and makes this edit on the article (agreeing with Justa) and this edit on the talk page (agreeing with Justa) while again removing the blog as a reference. If you look at the edit history of the IP, you can see that it was used to archive part of Punk's talk page. That alone doesn't mean it's Justa but if you look at Justa's talk page history, you can see where he says that he forgot to log in while archiving. I feel that Justa has been bullying and lying to a new user to get what he wants. Past that, I think it's obvious that he is socking (although I don't think this is normal for him). I think he needs to understand that his actions are harmful to the project.

Do you think I should initiate a sockpuppet investigation or just back off? The article is going to be deleted in an AfD so maybe it's better off left alone. I'm interested to see what an outside view has to say. Sorry for the long post and thanks for your time. OlYeller 04:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been patrolling newpages for a little over a month now and what you're describing is pretty much run of the mill for newpages. A throwaway account will create an article, then when it's tagged for speedy, they will log out and remove it as an IP or else get their friend to remove it as an IP. This happens constantly. Although I think you were correct in declining the speedy if the article made a legitimate claim of notability. I personally don't see any particular reason to initiate a sockpuppet investigation. It looks pretty obvious to me, but then, I've been seeing it for a bit, too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mainly right but the obvious fact is that Justa needs to either check his settings and ensure he's always logged in (AGF) or stop logging out to pretend additional support for his own position (cynical). A warning to that effect is not a problem. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

He reverted the edit today. Apparently it was his nephew who made the edit (see here). I'm going to let it go. After sleeping on it, I'd rather edit other articles than deal with it. OlYeller 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BROTHER, sure it was ;-) Guy (Help!) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! That applies to sisters too. My older daughter blames my younger daughter, usually pre-emptively. Even if she's not sure any crime has actually been committed, the little one definitely did it! It's a step up from the "oops" preceding tipping the drink on the floor (when she hadn't quite worked out the importance of timing). Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice

This is to inform you of a matter in which you may have some slight interest: you may find it here. –Turian (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)