Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:29, 21 January 2006

Beware of the tigers! This page may contain strong opinons. You have been warned.

• Archive
• Archive 2: The Sequel
• Archive 3: Return of the Archive

New year, new username

I'm changing my username as the old one takes up too much space in edit summaries. Still using the same alias, though. - Guy

What concerns?

What concerns would those be? FeloniousMonk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Personal details of uninvolved third parties in the text. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like your new username

Dear Guy. I'm sorry to tell you. I will try to be honest. Your new username, even if I know it may silly what I say, I don't like it. Now you know me very well and since you know I have a deep respect to you I have to tell you this. I loved the other long, very nice username, so I suggest you should change it back. I respect your decision, whatever this will be, but I hope you'll change it back. That long name gave you a stylish and nice looking signature. It represents a lot more info then the current one. It was very nice and I loved it. Maybe you remember that maybe I was the first who asked you about the origin of your name since it has a "romanian" word in it. Just zis Guy, you know? it was my friend's name that I was always glad to see on the talk page deffending me. You were my support in many difficult times and I want to thank you. I may have not sufficient thanked you for this. Please change it back. You'll still be my friend, I guess I'll have to get used with this change. I just wanted to tell this since I've seen on my watchlist this change. I respect your changing but I had to tell you. It gives so much of you that long name. Please reconsider. Bonaparte talk 18:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to tell you that it was written by once, so, as a second thaught I just want to assure you that I hope I will be also a support for you. Maybe a change is good from time to time and if you needed then I simply have to support you. Bonaparte talk 18:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The sig looks the same, it's just that the username is shorter. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm happy Guy! I didn't realized this :) Bonaparte talk 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I also dislike the name change, although I have to say if you keep your sig piped it will work for me, and JzG is indeed shorter and easier to type. KillerChihuahua 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people use JzG as an abbreviation anyway, for some reason the rather obvious and equally short Guy does not seem to occur to them :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 16:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I always used Guy, although I confess I was usually tempted to use Zaphod, which would have really confused people. KillerChihuahua 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrator?

I was wondering if you ever considered being an administrator? I would be happy to nominate you on RfA. Ifnord 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the third time it's been suggested :-) I have seen a lot of admins driven away by opposition to decisions they've made and I have also seen several who have used their admin powers in disputes in which they are personally involved (and I am sure I would be tempted to do the same), so I am very wary, as my judgment is not always as clear as I'd like it to be. On the other hand, access to deleted edits would be extremely useful sometimes... - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 16:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found your comments on AfD to be level-headed and positive. You have done a ton of fine editing and writing. You seem to think you don't have the best judgment, I humbly disagree. I think anyone who doubts their judgment demonstrates good insight and a willingness to learn from their own mistakes. I will happily nominate you, you can always decline. =) Ifnord 16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you have accepted it, let me post it up. And, good luck! Ifnord 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Larvatus

In the most recent round of e-mailed court filings from Larvatus (the zipped TIFF files, not the PDFs) you'll find the documents (use the Bates number to identify each):

1. The draft complaint from the law offices of David Affeld filed against Min Zhu for childhood sexual abuse, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of Erin Zhu, his daughter and plaintiff. Entered as evidence in 1-02-CV-809286 Bates number P1116
2. Interview entered as evidence in 1-02-CV-809286, in which Erin provides background and description of molestation. Bates number P1128
3. E-mail entered as evidence in 1-02-CV-809286 in which Erin Zhu states her father, Min Zhu, molested her at age fourteen. Bates number P0596
4. E-mail entered as evidence in 1-02-CV-809286 in which Zeleny demands payment from WebEx for services rendered. Bates number P0629

As court filings all are public record. Filings 1-2 (P1116, P1128) substantiate that Erin Zhu retained the Law Offices of David Affeld to sue her father for childhood molestation. Filing 3 (P0596) confirms that she shared the story with others, namely Blixa Bargeld. Filing 4 (P0629) confirms that Zeleny pursued WebEx to settle the debt owed Erin Zhu and Zeleny (dba ptyx). This debt begat the lawsuit FeloniousMonk 17:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have found some evidence as to claims of molestation, but only repudiation of the specific claim of rape as made by Larvatus. There is also some question over how reliable these claims may be, given the complex personal history of the parties involved. But there is more to read yet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 18:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Reliability is not at issue here. All that needs to be established is the facts of Erin Zhu's child rape and molestation allegations against Min Zhu. These facts are fully borne out by the documents at issue. In an unrelated matter, your deletion of the link to my Baudelaire site in the eponymous article smacks of a personal vendetta. If you are in a position to support your edit with substantive arguments grounded in literary scholarship, please do so. Larvatus 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

One key fact about her child rape allegations is that she specifically repudiates them under oath, stating that she lied to you when she made that claim. So if it's all the same to you I'd rather you stopped using the word. As to Baudelaire, check WP:RS - by what criteria is your blog a reliable source? As you will see from my other contribs, I am very much opposed to the use of external websites to subnstitute for content which should be in WP, and alsdo very much opposed ot using WP to promote external websites, especially non-authoritative ones (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam). This is an ongoing campaign and is not at all personal. If you have published on the subject (which I do not at all discount) then please provide citations. I did not see journal publication details on the link in that article, my apologies if I missed them. I just re-checked and it was 404 anyway. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / RfA! 16:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not all the same to me that you propose to misrepresent the evidence documented in court files that I digitized at great personal expense, pursuant to our agreement. Please honor your commitment by an accurate account of the rape allegations that Erin Zhu recited to her lawyers and presented to Min Zhu. Note also that Erin Zhu's sworn "repudiation" specifically confirms that Min Zhu sexually molested her. Your independent research of this subject will be aided by reference to the California legal definition of rape of a minor . As regards my Baudelaire entries, they are based on my 1993 Harvard thesis, accorded the highest honors by Hilary Putnam and Bill Todd. If you wish to verify this information, a copy of my work is available at that institution's Pusey Library. Larvatus 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/A

You must be using User:Jnothman's AfD helper userscript to vote on the AfD for the A&W how-to manual. I had the same problem: the user script broke on the & in A&W and made the above page. If you haven't done so already, you might want to transfer your vote to the correct A&W subpage, slap a {{db-author}} on the broken subpage, and one of us should contact User:Jnothman with a bug report... Segv11 01:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - it also breaks if there's a ' in the title :-) I did fix my vote, we should speedy the remaining page I guess. Or redirect it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

stop editing biographical information

I have added BY CHOICE information about my own designing efforts. I though this was an encyclopedia for ALL information in the world? So why can't I add biography?? You got biography for Kaffe Fassett - HE is still alive so your argument of no information about living people won't stick!!!

Who better than I to add a biography about my WORK... I am not talking about hobbies, families, etc, just my WORK!!!

Nathalie Forster

Like I said on your Talk page, read WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 09:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one, big time. The #1 worst person to edit biographical information is the person the bio is written about. Mike 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

An Invitation

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

A.J.A. 01:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rfa

Thanks JzG. Yes I was careful to see those contribs too. But I would like more edits to articles. I usually would support for 2500 article edits. I might support in a few days after I have checked some of your contribs. Good to also see improvement on edit summaries. --a.n.o.n.y.m 16:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I added a complete new article today at Sidney Cotton, needs some work though - two good sources are currently on loan to my father so I'll have to get them back :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / RfA! 16:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:D Forcing edit summaries. I'll look at things in a few days and at least comment. If I haven't before your RfA time is near an end just remind me. gren グレン 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't say fairer than that :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / RfA! 16:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPA

I would like any personal attack at me WP:RPAed as soon as possible. It isn't fair that a non-notable website tries to insert itself as the only link on the Traditional page, and whines for two feet of column inches. Dominick 20:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It will take a while, but I will do this. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / RfA! 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Newbie Template

I like your idea, I will start working on it tonight. Would you mind giving me some comments on it once i get a draft done? I was a little confused, i saw your note on the AfD and said hmm there isnt anything on my talk page lol. I guess I saw it just after you wrote it! Mike 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Let's see how it turns out. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / RfA! 16:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertising RFA

JzG, I am happy your RFA is going so well. I recommend that you don't advertise your RFA in every post you make via your signature; especially since you have plenty of support votes already. You don't need someone voting oppose just because of advertising WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_not_to_see. Cheers —Quarl 2006-01-11 19:38Z</span

See? Clueless newbieism all over the place! Sorting it now. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here to complain about your wild deletionist vandalism, and saw your RfA. I was glad to get a chance to voice my "ultra-oppose with fuzzy slippers and a salami codpiece" opinion! But then I saw that you had recomended "keep" on a list, so I changed my mind. - brenneman 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll change my vote immediately - mustn't disappoint my fanclub :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Brennerman's in your fanclub??? that's it, I'm taking my Support vote back! ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (PS I just came here to say that I'm glad to see you decided to run at last... I think you'll make a great admin! this seemed the best place to hang that remark...)

Gallery of motorized bicycles

Hi there. Given your involvement in this, I thought'd you'd like to know that it has been userfied to User:CyclePat/Gallery of motorized bicycles. I have given clear warnings against recreation on enwiki, and removed two unfree images from it in the process. -Splash 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I can't say much without risking something which could be construed as a personal attack, which would be unfortunate as I actually like Pat even though he drives me round the twist. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On that note, I'm worried about the copyright status of several images you have uploaded. An example is Image:Whizzer-motorised-bike.jpg, where you say that no rights have been explicitly reserved, claim fair-use but then tag it was an "irrevocably released" tag. You do not have to assert your copyright rights in US law for them to exist and be enforceable anyway, and you certainly don't irrevocably release them just by not asserting them. I think you need to go through them all ('fraid so) and use {{fair use in|article}} and give a fair-use rationale for each image, such as that at Image:Eric Thomas.jpg. (If you really don't want to do that, then at least use {{fair use}}). Thanks. -Splash 21:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you have removed the "coal bicycle" then? ;-) The tags I chose were from the wizard, the best I could find to fit. Status is as I stated it; if anyone disputes it with good reason - either to recategorise or to delete the images - I won't argue. I will review the images I uploaded, as you suggest. Some, of course are beyond reproach - I'll leave you to work out which. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through your upload list, I just found several that needed fixing and wanted to point them out. I believe there were some that you had taken yourself, and are thus "beyond reproach". I haven't removed anything from anywhere, apart from the PD tags from a couple that were very clearly not PD. All you need to do is replace the "irrevocably released" tag with a {{fair use}} tag, if that's what you're actually asserting. Or, preferably, as I said, a {{fair use in|article}} tag. -Splash 22:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the ones on my user page, which are: my car, and my bike, with me riding it. OK, a lame joke. The ones in Brompton Bicycle are also my own bike. Anyway, see the image you noted, is that OK now, do you think? Incidentally, I do appreciate it really. I'm in the middle of the WebEx and Min Zhu crap, not in a good frame of mind, sorry I snapped a bit. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent fair use rationale. If you plan to reasonably (and, preferably, provably) claim that the image has been produced for promotional purposes, you might review the text of {{promotional}} which may save you much typing. The particular images I spotted were the ones in Motorized bicycle, where I think you also need to replace the very old image with one of the PD tags, probably {{PD-art-life-50}}. -Splash 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So many templates, so little time :-) Do admins have to know all this stuff? If so it looks like I might be headed for a steep learning curve, with the tally at 69/0/2... - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the image tagging thing is pretty confusing. You'll pick it up as you go. Shortly after you first irreversibly delete an image, as a rule, and that little orange bar lights up....More seriously, you can spend some time reading about Misplaced Pages:Fair use and its links which is quite instructive. -Splash 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

did you want this picture in Motorized bicycle

this picture is nominated for delete. Did you want it in motorized bicycle... I figured I'dd ask you because you seem to have removed it. If so why did? --CyclePat 23:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Motorbike2.jpg

I took it out because we'd collected together some better pictures by then, that's all. I think the current crop of images illustrates the content very well; fifteen years ago I'd have said this was representative of a homebrew conversion but these days a homebrew is much more likely to be electric. Ask at Talk:motorized bicycle, unless we've driven everyone else off with our bickering. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD?

b.t.w.: I left a comment to your reply on my user talk:cyclePat and why doesn't your signature have the time and date? --CyclePat 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

ERP

Hi, thanks for your comment. I do a google search for each company I nominated for deletion. I do this partly to cleanup wikipedia from advertising & not notable companies, but also to test my thesis of that articles which is nominated for deletion which are open source projects, linux based or in some other form liked by that crowd are always kept while other products/companies are deleted. Advertising & notability should be treated the same way for closed-source software as for open-source projects. The deletion of 24SevenOffice is a perfect example of this, there are many less notable articles on Misplaced Pages but they are kept just because they are open source projects. --Sleepyhead 12:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume otherwise. If you included the results in the nominations you'd be doing everyone a favour (including yoruself). I am no lover of spam (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam for some like-minded souls), and you'll see I'm mostly backing your nominations, all I'm saying is tread carefully and for preference write more detailed nominations. The more detail in the nomination the more popular you will be among other AfD followers. I absolutely encourage you in purging the 'pedia of vanispamcruftisement. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, people are actually paid to put spam onto Misplaced Pages now. Every small company with a PR budget is telling their agency 'get us on wikipedia'. This problem will only get worse. --kingboyk 11:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Hi. I was wondering if you know of any Misplaced Pages policy about lists. I can't really grasp why any 'List of...' article is allowed. MediaWiki has categories, and the category pages are dynamically updated. Furthermore, a category page can have introductory text meaning it can easily replace any 'List of...' article. In terms of maximising our usage of the technology lists seem to me to be totally pointless. I'm asking you because I've seen you comment on 'listcruft'. --kingboyk 11:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be asking the wrong person - I think almost all liusts should be deleted :-) Misplaced Pages:Lists is clearly pro-list, but somewhere about there is a document which says "do not create lists with very large numbers of potential entries" or some such. Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists) has some guidance, too. - JzG 12:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was the kind of thing I was looking for. You're right it's very pro-list. Anyway, I've taken my comment over there. Cheers! --kingboyk 13:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this one? List of songs with a color word(s) in their names. I was going to AFD but it's quite actively edited so I'll pass. --kingboyk 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not the words! AfD it before it spreads! - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hurrah! I might have those extra tools myself soon, voting on mine currently stands at 80/1/1 :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already voted, but with those numbers you are an easy shoe-in. It restores my faith in the wisdom of the community at large. KillerChihuahua 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

motorized bicycle

Hello, I left a message for you on the talk:motorized bicycle page. --CyclePat 02:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation --CyclePat 04:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

175% fashist support

I left my comment on you adminship request. Sorry. But I have to many questions I need answered. I know you will be able to answer those question. These may be difficult questions. And I figured you might enjoy them, but please relise I though about them for a while. I think if you answer them I may be able to give you my 175% fashist support. --CyclePat 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed with your feedback and proffesionalism. :) I'm reading through your comments and will leave some feedback here. Thank you and I believe you are on your way to become a top gun administrator. --CyclePat 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I do my best, Pat, whether or not people recognise it at the time :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee elections 17:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I'll be right along. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 18:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Beware AAPL(NASDAQ)

There's something brewing with User:DeveloperFrom1983. I'd let it work itself out before making any changes to AAPL(NASDAQ). See User_talk:Essjay#hello for a little more info. Ewlyahoocom 12:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Berumen

Not sure what was POV about that paragraph you deleted. One of the few things we *do* know about this book is that its publication was self-funded - that is a fact, not point of view - and it also a fact that the book has not garnered significant notice - if you don't believe me, why don't you look for mention of it on the web (other than Misplaced Pages-related mention and mentions on the author's own blog). To my mind, if the article is to stay at all (I'm firmly of the view it should be deleted) then that sentence is important to prevent people being misled into thinking the book is more publicly notable than it actually is.ElectricRay 14:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem saying that it's self-published if that's proven from reliable sources, "to date it has not attained significant public or academic notice" needs citation or can simply be left out as unnecessary editorialising. Not all self-published books are trivial, see for example Robert Gunther whose self-published history of early science at Oxford is widely ocnsidered one of the foremost authorities on Hook, Boyle and others. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We have confirmation of it's self publication from the nature of the publisher, and the two editors who actually created the article. I take your point re the editorialising: I suppose the reason I feel the need to editorialise is to flag a lack of notability/creditibility which actually ought to be cured by outright deletion: that is, any article requiring such a flag shouldn't be on the site at all. ElectricRay 16:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the editorialising should indeed be at the inclusion level :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

— Ilyanep (Talk) 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)