Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 24 July 2006

Archives
Archive Archive 2: The Sequel Archive 3: Return of the Archive Archive 4: The Revenge - This Time It's Personal Archive 5, Jan 2006 (general archive) Archive 6, Feb 2006 (general archive) Archive 7, Mar 2006 (general archive) Archive 8, Apr 2006 (general archive) Archive 9, May 2006 (general archive) Archive 10, June-ish 2006 (general archive) Archive of discussions pertaining to Jason Gastrich Archive of discussions pertaining to personal rapid transit Archive of discussions pertaining to adminship and requests archiving policy privacy policy

Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me

Thank you to everybody for messages of support, and to JoshuaZ for stepping up to the plate. I have started to write what happened at User:JzG/Laura. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.

This page may contain trolling. Some of it mught even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. This user posts using a British sense of humour.

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History of Science
• JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

Good work on User:Socafan

I might not have pushed so hard, but you were clearly right, and the Socafan was clearly in the wrong. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

I see you've been down this road before. Talk:Asperger syndrome#What the autistic community feels about the medicalized article I'm somewhat new to Wiki myself: is it time for an ArbCom, would that help considering the extensive history, and if so, how does one do that? Sandy 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

God knows. It's a thorny problem - the reliable secondary sources here are medical, so those who are in what might be termed denial of the medical interpretation simply don't make it into the medical journals. It might be worth floating it around the mailing list (WikiEN-l) or the admin noticeboard; I freely confess to be well out of my depth with that one! Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Editor Crossmr and LiveJournal

Please look at the edit record with regard to Crossmr and LiveJournal: it appears that he is (ab)using Misplaced Pages rules to systematically remove all material which places LiveJournal management in a bad light regardless of the facts: for example, multiple LJ users' accounts of identical actions by the LJ Abuse Team are removed "because LiveJournals are weblogs and Jimbo Wales has decreed that these are unacceptable as sources" (quasi-quote). OTOH, he allows LJ management statements to appear unchallenged because LJ management speaking for itself is "an official source." The net effect is that the article POV in favor of LJ management.

He does this with other material in the article as well. In another example, he has repetedly censored the fact that some LJ users abbreviate the phrase "Friend-list" as "flist", even though a casual LJ user will see the neologism repeatedly in use.

A quick scan through the record will show many similar removals and reverts of factual information he just plainly doesn't want to appear in the article, all under the guise of following WP guidelines, following their letter but not their spirit.

We have disagreed in the past, but you strike me as basically a fair man. I realize I can be hot-headed when information which I personally know to be true is reverted, and have a tendency to personalize, so I withdrew myself from arguing with him about this several days ago. Your advice and perhaps intervention would be appreciated.

Davidkevin 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I find your accusation that I'm abusing the rules a bit of a personal attack. Just because you want to include material you can't source properly is no reason to start accusing me of abusing the rules. Perhaps you need to re-read WP:OR, WP:V and several of the other policies on including content in wikipedia again, but we don't relax the rules just because you think the content should be included, especially on policies that are the cornerstone of wikipedia. Schmucky was able to go out and find sources for the breastfeeding material, as such, it remains. Its not a complicated process. If you want to include a theory, put forth an original idea, define a term, introduce an argument (like a criticism), or several of the other things on this list WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F You need to bring a citation. If you cannot, its original research and cannot be kept in the article. The policy cannot be misinterpreted as it clearly states These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. So while you, or I, or a dozen of us may agree that some term means something, without a citation it fails the original research test and must be excluded. The complimentary policy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth also has a very clear definition of what may be included. This is also a non-negotiable policy. The first paragraph very clearly defines the goal of this encyclopedia and what you wanted to include flew in the face of that. This spells it out very clearly The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is thus verifiability, not truth. These are not just good ideas, these are binding policies for inclusion of content.--Crossmr 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's extraordinarily tacky to attempt to start an argument in someone's User Talk page, but since you have misinterpreted my request for review as a besmirchment, I will reply here this one time. I don't presume to speak for him, but I would request that this not occur again in JzG's User Talk page.

I would be more inclined to believe you if these policies were enforced as stringently elsewhere as you enforce them in this one particular article, and if it didn't appear that your pattern of these deletions enforce a particular point of view.

However, rather than make the mistake of claiming my perception is an objective fact, I have asked JzG to please review the LiveJournal edit record.

If you want to personalize this review request into a personal attack upon you I cannot stop you from doing so, but that is not my intent. My intent is that facts not be disincluded for capricious, arbitrary, or rules-abusive reasons. An unbiased administrative review will help in this regard, I believe.

I am trying very hard (JzG knows with what a temper I can sometimes express myself) to not be "personally attack-ive", as it were. Looking at what I wrote above, I guess I could still have been better at it, and I'm sorry for that. However the issues are valid ones over which to be concerned, it seems to me, which is why I'm asking someone else to look at the record.

I await JzG's review at his convenience, or if he is not able, I would hope he can request someone of equal disinterest to do it instead.

Davidkevin 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all an argument, just ensuring he receives both sides of whats going on. Your tone was accusatory and very negative in regards to your perception of my behaviour.--Crossmr 01:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• WP:RS is somewhat ambiguous here. It allows the use of blogs as primary sources when discussing their subject but in this case that woudl depend on whether you consider the subject to be LJ or the individual LJ users. Either interpretation is valid, and if there are a significant number I would be inclined to allow it with some care given to the wording. I'd also be inclined to keep it very short, as there is no evidence presented that this event was considered significant by anyone other than the livejournallers themselves. But that is just my personal view; as always, secondary sources are preferred. It would be much better to find coverage of this story in one of the tech journals and say "according to s--and-so" where so-and-so is a source of known authority, and most importantly it would allow us to have a secondary source for the purported imnportance of the events, which is the real issue for me. Have any of the notable web-watchers covered this in sufficient detail to be helpful? Just zis Guy you know? 12:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case its seemingly used to support criticism about Livejournal and to support a definition of flist. I don't believe anyone's written a blog entry about what they feel flist means, so that usage is definitely out. I'd also mention that RS was recently changed by someone trying to push an agenda for inclusion of certain content in a couple of articles based wholely on unreliable usenet posts. Previous to this it read that blogs were never usable unless the person was a well known researcher or journalist. I think trying to source blog opinion on LJ is a bit pointless. You have no way of knowing if they're in the significant majority (unless you can find some credible sources), so simply saying "xx livejournal user said this" doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion because really, why is that person's opinion encyclopedic? There are hundreds of thousands of users, we could make the article pretty long sourcing each of their opinions.--Crossmr 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggets mediation. I really don't have the time to get into another content dispute right now, and the arguments are detailed. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Notices

Thank you for the "Rouge Admin" thingy. Please be aware that I do not use userboxes, nor am I particularly enamored of the sentiment implied by that one. I realize you meant well; however, I have removed it. DS 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rouge is as rouge does :-) 12:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help with this though...

I meant to move a page this morning List of tallest structures in Paris => List of tallest structures in the Paris region) and almost made a mistake - I cut and pasted the article content from one page to another (where there was once a redirect back to the original page) and saved it. I should have used the 'move tab' - I did not know that it was possible to move 'over' a redirect but caught this in time by some 'in doubt' last-minute reading. - and my error gave the page I wanted to move to a history, which made it impossible to complete the move. Could you somehow efface my 'history' error and make the move possible once again?

Thank you, regards,

THEPROMENADER 08:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a complex move, I will do it when I get a minute. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I had no idea it would be hard to fix - apologies. No hurry at all, as the move has been temporarily 'waylaid' through some creative juggling. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. THEPROMENADER 13:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not hard to fix. I have to delete the redirect, move, then undelete to restore and merge the deleted history. It's a mildly tedious action but not an especially arduous one. Just zis Guy you know? 13:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking that you clear the history of the List of tallest structures in the Paris region - leaving the redirect there - but 'freeing' the namespace for an eventual future move. If a page has a history, one can't move over it - and the only history the List of tallest structures in the Paris region page has is my 'paste' error, so it would seem alright just to just eliminate this without worrying about special treatment. Or did I miss something? Anyhow, thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Might work, but doesn't matter too much if not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Overreaction

I think you need to actually look at the edit history of the Religious life. It was never pointed toward Religious order. Your tone is really over the top here. Vaquero100 19:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone who writes this:

I wonder which hoary old argument has just been revived? Could it perhaps be the perenial demand by the Papists to move their article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church? I must wander along and have a look - maybe there will be a new argument this time. Yes, yes, I know - the triumph of hope over experience... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps should not be so quick to judge. Your edits have a clear bias. I have not seen any evidence that you are willing to engage in a discussion of Catholic naming issues from the perspective of WP conventions and policies. This is problematic for an administrator who can enforce his bias with impunity. If you would like to have a rational discussion, I am more than open to it. But threats will not help the situation. You might also want to read this article: Papist Vaquero100 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you appear to view everything through the filter of how closely it matches your own agenda, I have little doubt that you would never perceive any position other than your own as neutral. This is known locally as MPOV. For your information I have taken part in these discussions some while back. As far as I'm concerned the issue is settled long since, notwithstanding the occasional rehashing of the same arguments. Of course I, as an Anglo-Catholic, have a bias as well. The difference is that I am open about it and do my best to discount it.

You are right that the redirect was not to religious order. I aoplogise. On the toher hand, it should have been. To point it to a Catholic-specific article in the first place was a failure of WP:NPOV. Your user page makes it quite plain that you are waging a POV-pushing campaign. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I should have directed "religious life" to "religious order." It was a thoughtless error on my part but not with malicious intent. And I have no argument with the present redirect. Your anti-Catholic commentary suggests that you have a bias regarding issues I edit on. When Anglicans and others move an article without discussion, administrators look the other way. If I move it back because there was no due process, I get threats. If you are going to have a role in Catholic related articles (which your Papist comments to me suggests you shold not), then you and other administrators should be more even handed. Also, it would show good faith on your part if you would actually demonstrate in your commentary a familiarity with CC vs. RCC. The arguments have become much better developed than they were in March. The March discussion was not argued from a WP standpoint but a theological one. The arguments on the page just sited are not a rehash. However, it appears that you are comfortable hiding behind "an old conversation" because it suits you. This kind of intransigence among WP administrators will be WP's undoing in the long run. How is it possible for 17 people last March to decide with authority and finality something so obviously controversial. This is irrational.

It is also a convenience for you to label me as one who cannot possibly see another side of an argument. This of course works both ways. You and your fellows have shown nothing but disdain for rational discourse. You almost appear to be afraid of it. There really IS a serious problem when administrators can use terms like "Papist" when they talk to one another and no one says anything. Apparently that is just fine. Apparently it is also just fine when it is brought to your attention on your talk page. If you are going to remain an administrator you ought to have a more professional way of handling things, including recusing yourself from editing topics which arrouse some layers of bigotry within you. Vaquero100 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh FFS, calm down. It's only a website, you are taking this way too seriously. Intransigence? Nonsense. Like I said, the discussion has been done to death; you are wading in to a long-settled compromise and asserting your particular prejudices. You appear to believe that only your POV is neutral - read m:MPOV to see how the community views this kind of thinking. As I said before, people whyo come to WP to "right great wrongs" tend to be problematic, because when their belief clashes with policy they tend to assume that it is their belief which must prevail. A look through the Arbcom archives will show you any number of examples. Just zis Guy you know? 11:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case will be filed

As you pretend to own anohter user's talk page, abuse your admin power to violate the 3 revert rule in order to push you POV, make derogatory comments, and as I see above not just concerning me and the French, you removed a POV-tag in spite of an obviously ongoing dispute and blocked me in spite of a conflict of interest I file an arbitration case. Socafan 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you get round to this, don't forget to post the link so we can comment too. Stephen B Streater 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see how many ArbCom members reject the request. (→Netscott) 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It will be anti-climactic to see how many reject the request. Admins stick together like stink on shit, and when JzG says "jump," Jimbo says "How high?"

Close: it's Jimbo who shouts jump and I ask how high. Which is why I worked so hard to try and keep the Armstrong article from turning into a hatchet job. Just zis Guy you know? 07:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My comments are in at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#JzG. Feel free to add yours. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ;)

Re-incarnation

You might want to quietly 'check' out this reincarnation of an (almost) anagram, I think the editor's agenda seriously concerns you too(sound familiar?). I see enough edit material to perfectly correlate & . Here he is now blanking a talk page setting forth his bias & previous uncivil behavior, deleting the (block) tag resulting from his numerical IP address. Other interesting diffsmiracle 1day rfarb, then going down in flames again, wipes the trail at withdrawal; last day scuffling with other admins; I can provide more. He has targeted me in several articles and harps on my topics in false and disparging ways while trying to create new onerous policies. I think a 3rd id is his IP address, I am unsure as to the relation of Hexagon1. His favorite subjects for both named id's: caron & stupidity/IQ; a recurring word is "psychotic". I apologize for the add'l security name, but I am really getting concerned here...--Needza restrayning odor 10:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please email me. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Spell fixes

I just got obsessive compulsive and have to fix 3 minor spelling errors in your statement at RfArb. I hope you don't mind! =D --mboverload@ 11:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least. I have bone-deep burn scars on my left hand dating back to an injury in my early childhood, and I routinely make characteristic typing errors - I'd never be able to successfully run a sock farm ;-) Anybody is welcome to fix these. Just zis Guy you know? 11:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank god, looks like it will be rejected. My RfA failed - guess I won't know what an RfC against me feels like =) =( --mboverload@ 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, that doesn't really make sense, heh. Anyway, thanks for clearing up the sockmaster =D --mboverload@ 12:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You never know, in time things can change. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

=D. I seem to remember you on IRC, do you have a nick there? We can chat if you want --mboverload@ 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I only use irc for RC and when WP is down. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, nice to "meet" you =D. Laterz. --mboverload@ 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

American International School

Thanks for protecting this article. I was starting to feel like every second edit was a revert there. Kevin 12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too man! Thanks so much! --mboverload@ 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talkpage

The comment with the diff you provided on my talkpage, is irrelevant, because I cooled down myself just like ten minutes after that and you probably knew it. There is no reason to warn me about something I removed, if I already realised my error. Your action doesn't fit the wiktionary nor dictionary definition of warning, because I didn't need to be informed on something I already knew, but it might be seen as bossing, which is an unacceptable thing for anyone here. Please remove the warning yourself. Azmoc 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know what is going on the other side of your computer screen, I am not psychic :-) is still a personal attack. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited under an IP address for quite some time. However, you should not be questioning my edit count at all. My opinions are as valid as yours even if I didn't contribute to the good thing (wikipedia) as much as you did. Azmoc 12:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, we need ot nkow your history so we can see where you are coming from. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is "I find the fact that you think that you are running wikipedia unbelievable?" a personal attack? And like I said, you don't need to know my history at all. Azmoc 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

At what point did anybody suggest they were runnig Misplaced Pages? "Us" in this case clearly meant the community, i.e. those editors with a history of contribution to the project. Balance of reply is on WP:ANI. Just zis Guy you know? 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The real reason why you placed the warning on my talkpage was, that you just didn't like my proposal and were suspicious about the fact that I knew where the village pump is after few edits. You can request checkuser if you still want to know who I am. Stop using warnings in content disputes. Azmoc 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

...is the wrong answer. I don't give a flying fuck about your proposal, it has no earthly chance of success. There is no content dispute. Stop Wikilawyering and accept criticism when you are in the wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not wikilawyering, stop spreading your flying fuck around me. You do something that goes against the policies, when somebody says you shouldn't do that you say he's wikilawyering. Azmoc 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And the policy which was contravened was?... You got it wrong. I was perhaps a little harsh with you, but that doesn't change the fact that you got it wrong. I think we should just let it drop. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

Hi. I'm curious why you thought it a good idea to revert Lance Armstrong to your preferred version and immediately protect it - especially since I honestly do not see any BLP issues in the version you reverted. But more to the point, I do not see how a single editor's single edit constitutes grounds for reverting an article and immediately protecting it under ANY grounds. Phil Sandifer 14:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my preferred version, it's simply a version I am comfortable with per WP:BLP. Socafan has repeatedly edit warred over the insertion of content and phrasing whihc implies that Armstrong is guilty of doping, when every test result and an official inquiry say the opposite. I posted it at WP:ANI for review, if others support a different approach they are welcome to propose or implement such. My sole concern is that Socafan's edits give more credit to the knocking copy than to the fact of his being officially clean (personally I don't believe any pro cyclist is actually clean, but that has no place here either). He also emphasises WADA over the independent review which criticised WADA. WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP apply here. Above all, there has been absolutely no attempt to discuss the detail of content and wording, just the usual "ZOMG ROUGE ADMIN ABUSE" crap, of which I am more than a little tired. As soon as Socafan shows willingness to debate the details of wording, rather than simply edit-warring over it and kicking up a fuss about being prevented from doing so, the problem evaporates. Just zis Guy you know? 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think most, though not all of the problems with Socafan's additions are in the quality of his writing, not the content. He's not really adding any material that shouldn't be cited... but he's using odd phrasings and just plain awkward ones. If you look at the edit I made right before your reversion, though, I cleared most (Though not quite all) of them up. Which is another reason why it's very, very bad to protect a page to a preferred version. (Note "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." and "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." Note also that the protection policy does not support page protection to enforce BLP, and that protecting a page to deal with a user who has recently brought an arbcom case against you is TERRIBLE practice.) Phil Sandifer 15:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You may well be right, I have never been in that position before. If it had been some random article on a Pokémon or some such I would happily have left it at "the wrong version" but recent exchanges on the list have left me with a very strong impression that to do so is simply not acceptable in cases of WP:BLP. Am I wrong there? I am astounded that WP:PPOL does not include BLP, since I know of at least three articles which are or have been protected for precisely that, and not flagged as WP:OFFICE (actually my reading of it is that it does cover BLP, but that may well need clarifying in the policy). Looking back I should have stubbed the section, I think. That would have been more transparent, yes? What matters here to my mind is policy, and policy is WP:NPOV especially in cases of biography. For non-biographic content there is no rush, no deadline, little realistic chance of being sued. In the case of Armstrong, he had at one point eleven lawsuits going at once. There is plenty of evidence that he takes this particular issue very seriously indeed. As always, I am happy to learn from those more experienced. What would you have done in the face of what you perceive as an editor aggressively pushing potentially defamatory content? I must have got something wrong here, or the problem would not have escalated as it did. A lot of the active admins are not much more experienced than me, so I'm not overall surprised that WP:ANI did not yield wiser counsel. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, ANI is a mess. I mean, I don't even read it. (Then again, I spend 95% of my time logged out these days, and just log in when I need to speak as a grizzled old fart. Like now.) The thing is, basically, for most purposes, you can act as an administrator in a situation, or as a content editor, but not both. If you're going to edit for content, you can't protect the page. You have to find someone else to do it. In this case, I'd have used WP:RFPP, started an RFC on Socafan (or made a counterclaim in RFAr), and probably pinged someone on IRC to have a look at it, or left a note on another administrator's talk page. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. The disease of immediatism, I guess. I see a problem, I have a desire to fix it now. I am somewhat jaded about RFCs, at least in respect of providing rapid remedies to problem behaviour, and don't think this has got anywhere close to Arbcom's attention level yet. Ah well. Just zis Guy you know? 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA thanks

Hello JzG/Archive 24, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Misplaced Pages. The 💕. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't touch my posts

If you touch my posts I will report vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyColl (talk • contribs)

Like the Talk comment said, that article was deleted. You are the second person to repost it - if you are not the same as the original one...

please see

please see: Talk:Sculpture_of_Ancient_Greece#Redirect_to_Greek_Statue. Thanks. Ste4k 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes

Pretty sure... it likely doesn't matter... I believe the previous name's been abandoned. (→Netscott) 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How long must the articles be? xaozon 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments re: Userfication of essays

Hi, Guy,

Thank you for your comments at the noticeboard.

I think my major concern is that the essay category in Misplaced Pages project-space is becoming a backdoor method of instruction creep, without having to build consensus or go through any sort of community review. As you point out, the threshhold for inclusion is pretty low, even though the Misplaced Pages-space help page notes that, "The project namespace generally consists of polished pages."

This has been a "new" issue that appears to have organically grown in the last six-seven months; and so, no policy or discussion (as far as I've come across) has been put towards it on Misplaced Pages. Your essay WP:HOLE which you referenced in your comments, likewise dates to February of this year. As noted at the Meta category for essays, "As of 2006, there is some disagreement about whether new essays, particularly personal essays, should be added to Meta anywhere but in user space."

Already the Category:Wikipedia_essays has generated over 200 essays, most of which are in user-space, but an increasing number are moved or created in Misplaced Pages-space-- including many which either make little sense, or attempt to be policy directives hidden in the guise of essays. To start alphabetically:

• Misplaced Pages:Alternative_name (created 10 July, 2006 as an article, moved to project-space by Uncle G), which makes the bizarre claim, "An englishman from southern England may refer to London with a diferent name than an englishman from northern England."
• Misplaced Pages:Amnesia_test, (created 21 June, 2006 by Samuel Blanning) which proposes that before writing an article, editors should "Forget everything you know about the subject."
• Misplaced Pages:Adminitis, (created 10 February, 2006 by Kim Bruning)
• Misplaced Pages:Assume the assumption of good faith, (created 30 March, 2006 by Brian0918), which was initially claimed to be a guideline.
• Misplaced Pages:Avoid using WikiProject talk page templates (created 23 June, 2006 by SPUI) as a proposed guideline, then converted into an essay.

And that's just the "A"s.

While your own essays are very clever and humourous, such as Misplaced Pages:Beware_of_the_tigers (created in December), are they necessary clarification, or do they just create a new Misplaced Pages-space page that can be cited as a shorthand in discussions-- like the other newer animal-themed essays and Misplaced Pages:No_angry_mastodons (2 Feb 2006) Misplaced Pages:Don't be an ostrich (13 July, 2006)?

You raise an interesting point. I would say that MfD should consider each one on its merits. If several essays address a common theme, perhaps they should be merged. If an essay gives an easily understood prose description of a common problem or situation (e.g. WP:NFT) then I think it would make very good sense to keep it. I haven't thought very depely about this myself other than to note that some are very definitely attempts to retrospectively legislate in arguments where people have been on the losing side, often with the deliberate intent of subverting or evading existing guidelines (e.g. WP:NNOT). I guess m:CREEP counsels against more guidelines - proposed guidelines seem to arrive at the rate of one a week or quicker. So: I don't know :-D But I do know that one of those I looked at did seem to have at least some utility.

Perhaps we should organise them into a menu like WP:TPL, and maybe you're right there does need to be some kind of bar. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's definitely utility in many of the essays; I certainly wouldn't claim they don't have useful points to make. However, should these count more than everyday comments people post on various discussion pages? Effectively, we have a sort of "rule inflation": even as guidelines are increasingly viewed as policy, non-consensus essays are given a "sheen of legitimacy" by virtue of being in Misplaced Pages-space and having an abbreviated WP: shortcut-- and thus are being treated (and cited on talk pages) as if they are guidelines. I would have no problem with the "good" ones being upgraded to proper guideline status, given appropriate community review. However, surviving an MfD might be seen as a further legitimisation; an essay that is "kept" would in effect, have de facto consensus approval to be a guideline, in a sort of round-about way. Recall the ongoing Great Userbox debate: given opportunity and no policy against it, some Wikipedians will turn innocuous "features" (like being able to write essays, or to create userboxes) into a means to promote a particular viewpoint.

In my view, the category of "essay" is currently too open for misuse, when placed on Misplaced Pages-space. I might suggest that essays which are not being sought as proposed guidelines be either userfied or moved to Meta. Essays on WP-space which might become guidelines, should be changed to "proposed" status and thus gain approval or rejection. The problem is there are dozens upon dozens to go through, and rarely do they get brought up for deletion-- except when they are seen as being venues for personal attack. In any event, the quantity of pseudo-namespace redirecting to personal essays should be pruned back-- it reminds me of .COM registration, with people vying to get "cool" domain names for their personal pages. --Leflyman 16:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cliff Notes

What do you think of this? Special:Contributions/WileyPublishing. Looks like publisher adding a link to the Cliff Notes for all the classic works of fiction. Not sure about the rules, but seems wrong. Fan-1967 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tricky. This looks like the entire Cliff Notes online free, which is a boon for students of the subject, but as you say a problem for spamwatchers. Since it is to the content, not to a sales blurb and off-the-page sales pitch I'd be inclined to allow it. But I'd need to lok at more than a couple to assess whether this is really full content or just enough to suck you in and sell. Just zis Guy you know? 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I wish I'd had these available when I was in school. I had to actually buy the Cliff Notes, or <shudder> actually read the book. Fan-1967 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that's harsh :o) "Once more into the breach, dear friends, or close the wall up with out English dead..." Fammit, I can almost hear Olivier saying it. Just zis Guy you know? 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Had to watch out for trying to use the movies. I think Olivier's Hamlet left Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern on the cutting-room floor. Kind of lost a bit. On the other hand, we did have the Classics Illustrated comics way back when, but they were awfully abridged, too. Fan-1967 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But.... Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead! :o) I'm off to get on my recumbent bicycle for a nice ride in the sun. Later. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked. -- Fan-1967 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posted an opening for a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Cliffs Notes on works of literature - should we link them?. -- Fan-1967 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Hi there, thank you very much, I had not expected that. I am impressed, honestly. Can we start discussing at the article talk pages now? Socafan 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm already there. Just zis Guy you know? 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid your recent biased edits leave some doubt for me to believe in an honest apology: . Socafan 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are such a bad, bad rouge admin. :-) (→Netscott) 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologised for being obnoxious to you. I am completely sincere in that. The fact that I stongly dispute the tone of your edits surrounding the doping allegations against Armstrong is completely separate. I think part of your problem here might be a failure to separate issues fomr personalities. It is perfectly possible to disagree and still remain civil. It is not, however, permissible to editorialise and insinuate guilt where none is proven. To take content which has been rejected in some form in one article and insert it into another in the same form is not permitted. It is called a POV fork. Just zis Guy you know? 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Andrew Homer

So, you left the Astrology page when the getting was good. The BS continues. I wonder if you might look at the above user and his talk attacks. Some examples: . Basically, he just pops up on talk every once in a while to name call. He was blocked a month ago and replied as follows . Sorry to bother. The page has been an absolute drain on my Wiki-time. Marskell 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Clue-by-four wielded. POV warriors we don't need. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's obviously not going to affect his behaviour, unfortunately. Marskell 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Judging by his email to me, no. Just zis Guy you know? 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

I'm sorry about the delays regarding this article. I will check on the status shortly; I've just returned from holidays so am not aware of the status. - Amgine 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not able to communicate with Brad, who is out of office on a support-raising trip. I'll be following up as soon as I am able. - Amgine 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Xenphobic comments

I'm very concerned about the xenophobic comment you made on the "Lance Amstrong" talk page. I don't think Misplaced Pages admin shall behave this way. As for now, I'll watch your edits, just to be sure it was an incident.JeDi 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This has already been addressed. The intent was to point out the very high levels of ill-feeling the Americans had engendered in the French at the time, and the corresponding likelihood of UCI letting Lance Armstrong, of all cyclists, get off a doping charge. It is an absurd idea. Ullrich and Basso have both been suspended this year, UCI have in the past pulled entire teams. There is no plausible basis for believing they would allow Armstrong to get away with it. Just zis Guy you know? 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with JzG's explanation. You read it wrong. --mboverload@ 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stefan

User:Bikeable found a copy of that book in the library where he studies. You can read what he has to say on my talk page but the core is that the book is about the Holy Roman Empire, and has nothing about Schwarzenbergs in any century. Our desperate housewife is the kid and was lying though his teeth as usual. Fan-1967 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not unexpected. Just zis Guy you know? 13:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures in Paris

Hi, I'm having problems with that List of tallest structures in Paris again. This article was incorrectly named, as 70% of all it contains is not in the city of Paris, so I moved it to List of tallest structures in the Paris region. It's been moved back twice by two contributors who are of course unable and seemingly unwilling to provide any valid reference or argument to maintain their case. Basically what this amounts to is a couple of what seems to be suburban kids (amazingly similar in opinion and editing habits and article contributions) using Wiki to make it look like they live in the Big City - that Paris isn't. I've provided on the article talk page sources proving inaccuracy and links to Wiki naming conventions outlining what should be the correct name, but in spite of this all propositions go unanswered and any attempt at correction is reverted. This is a situation beyond pigheaded, and I'm even being dogged by one of the above contributors - you will no doubt get an answer to this below. I hope I'm wrong.

If you see the reason in the above and in the article talk page, would it be possible to move the article from its present space to List of tallest structures in the Paris region once again?

Sorry again for all the trouble. THEPROMENADER 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: for a clear picture of what I'm talking about, you can have a look at this map. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See the Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - left you an answer. THEPROMENADER 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly me - I should have gone about it the official way from the start. I've just filed a WP:RM. Thanks and cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

need a vist please

Do you think you could avert an edit war before it starts please? Please see discussion at the bottom of course in miracles. Thanks. Ste4k 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan announcement

"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Misplaced Pages. I did post 100 chess biographies on Misplaced Pages. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until , and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)

Noel Rawsthorne

No problem! Shame there isn't more information about him online, as I don't know a great deal offhand. David L Rattigan 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

I saw your note on the ACIM page. This are so many subjects of interest to groups of people in the world that do not fall in the realm of academic.

As far I am concerned, what was a good article (with good referencing considering the material) has been destroyed. I believe that particular user has driven the original author away from WP. The person that was trying to help appears to have left. As far as I know I was the last person familiar with the subject. If it is the policy of WP to let "editors" who have no knowledge of a subject destroy the work of others then I have no desire to have much interaction with WP any longer.--Who123 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the original quality of the article - it read as a homily or dissertation. Pretty much all the referencing was to the book itself, which made the whole article original research. If there are no secondary sources, then we can't have an article, certainly not one of any substance, per WP:V. It really is that simple. Yes, it's a problem. But we can't simply ignore it. It would be better to work with Ste4k and address her (valid) concerns rather than simply complain that, in essence, because we can't have certain content per policy then we should ignore policy. Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but how does it differ from this article? Rainbow_Gathering --Who123 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple: I'm interested in ACIM :-) There are many carp articles. Hopefully, one by one, they attract the attention of people motivated to fix them. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Warning

I take it that you have deleted without discussion the Category:Junk science road safety which I created earlier, given that you have 'reverted' the three (Road-rule enforcement camera, Speed limit and Speed bump) articles which I had added to that category before it disappeared, and that you left an unexplained 'warning' on my talk page. All of those articles (and others which I was about to add to it) rely on junk science for one side of the debate or the other. Can you please explain your apparently rather draconian reaction, and explain why you do not want to see road safety articles which are linked by a common theme of controversy related to the use, interpretation and appropriateness of research, related through a common category reflecting that link. -De Facto 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Correct. The road safety articles already are linked by a common theme of controversy, it's Category:Road safety. As was clear in the deletion debate for the previous category, there is pretty much nothing in road safety which is without at least some element of controversy - but equally there are few if any road safety interventions which are without at least some arguable merit. Replacing the deleted category with something even more POV is pointless and absurd. The smart move would be to write an encyclopaedic article on controversies in road safety, as suggested in the CFD debate. Just zis Guy you know? 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• You'd allow me to write Controversies in road safety, even though it uses the 'c' word - but would I be able to list the articles that were in the deleted category in it. There is, to me at least, a subtle difference between the generic kind of controversy inherent in most, if not all road safety measures that you allude to, and the so-called 'junk science' supported/opposed measures, or those supported/opposed by research subject to much legitimate scientific scepticism. Those few articles of the latter types are the items that I wish to group together in a category so that other interested readers can find them in one place without the need to trawl through the lists of innocuous Category:Road safety items. -De Facto 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• DeFacto, as a largely disinterested observer, I must say the above is scarcely coherent. Your attempts at persuasion might be more effective were you to take a bit of time to think through your points and present them cogently. Try to see the following sentence (if we must call it that) as though you hadn't written it: There is, to me at least, a subtle difference between the generic kind of controversy inherent in most, if not all road safety measures that you allude to, and the so-called junk science supported/opposed measures, or those supported/opposed by research subject to much legitimate scientific scepticism. Now read it again; I'll be back with a handmade sandwich before you're done. Five commas. Two slashes. You've given your reader an urgent case of lexical indigestion by the time he's got to "subtle"! Scheinwerfermann 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• The answer is obviously that yes, you could write an appropriately neutral and balanced article on controversies in road safety because - as I've pointed out more than once - I can't think of a single area of road safety that is entirely free from controversy. A category is meaningless for that reason, and an article can detail the areas of controversy. For example, I can't foresee much controversy about the idea that parking on a busy through-route during peak periods is selfish and antisocial, but clamping someone for parking on a road with no traffic on a Sunday might well be controversial. In my view the majority of controversy stems from details of enforcement. Similarly, you can't call the science which underpins speed limits junk science - that's a label I'd have to reserve for the likes of Paul Smith - but there is some questionable use of statistics and some evidence of fallacious arguments in those who argue for enforcement in some circumstances.

Just for the sake of argument, let's take a short trip through Category:Road Safety:

• 5 M factors - motorist centred.
• AA Motoring Trust - motorist centred
• Accident blackspot - accident migration, regression to the mean
• Accident migration - risk compensation theory
• Association of British Drivers - "selfish bastards" wasn't it?
• Centre for Automotive Safety Research - car headbands, risk compensation
• Construction site safety - controversy over which is the source of risk
• Crash attenuator - risk compensation theory, pedestrians are not fitted with them
• Cycling Proficiency Test - obsolete playground-based training, superseded by National Standards
• Driving simulator - no substitute for the real thing
• Fatality Analysis Reporting System - supposed massive under-reporting of injuries
• Fitch Barrier - risk compensation again
• John Fitch (driver) - and again
• Jaywalking - why blame the pedestrian? They use the roads by right, motorists only under license
• Killed or Seriously Injured - inaccurate but widely used due to larger numbers than (more accurate) fatalities

By which time I lost interest. I can see areas of controversy attached to every item in that category, and actually the only real differentiator is the degree of controversy. Incidentally, I'm somewhat surprised you chose not to place ABD in there since they are undoubtedly highly controversial.

The whole subject is controversial, there is not even universal agreement over what constititutes safety (safety for whom? from whom?). Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I read your comment on Jdas07 talk page. Thank you for the insight on samsloan.com and ishipress.com. However, the Hindi-Urdū-Pashtu-English Comparative Word list linked on the Hindi, Hindustani, Pashto, Roman Urdu, and Urdu pages is neutral content, is inoffensive, and does not violate any copyrights. The list is actually very helpful when comparing languages of the South Asian-Middle Eastern dialect continuum. Maybe we should keep this link on just these five pages. Thank you for your understanding. AbdulQadir 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Victor Niederhoffer

Hi, This article is in need of a bit of NPOV'ing I feel. I don't want to get into a revert war over it - any suggestions appreciated. Dlyons493 Talk 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That article reads like an advertisement! I think the first step is to get some profiles from mainstream magazines, if any are available. I'm out of my depth here because I know nothing of that world (even though I work for a company active in the financial markets). I'd also try to find out how the returns his trading made compare with other similar figures. Was he one of Soros' top traders or somewhere in the middle? Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

YTMND

Why do you hate YTMND so much? I must know the reason for such an "irrational" opinion! ;D TacoNazi 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am indifferent to YTMND, but most of the YTMNDs linked contain copyright violations either in the images or the soundtracks. YTMNDers are also engaged in viral marketing and I see no reason to help them along. Just zis Guy you know? 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted DRV

To be honest, that DRV was in need of a bit of rougeness. I did warn the user concerned that I thought listing it was a bad idea, and it seems that I was right. With any luck the matter ends here. (Some good did come out of it, as it gave me a chance to notice that the DRV daily subpage hadn't been transcluded). --ais523 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing external links from AfD pages

I've reverted your "delinking" of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination) and Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination). We now have rel=nofollow enabled on pages outside the main namespace, so those links won't contribute to search engine rankings. Thus there is no point in not making them real links. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will continue to unlink offsite copyvios, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 12:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This will make the list of backmasked messages a lot easier to clean up. Λυδαcιτγ 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kittie May Ellis

Why did you state here that this article is unverifiable? In my previous versions I've posted at least 15 secondary, published sources. Are you just reading what other editors have claimed (without any basis I might add). The newspaper the Snohomish Tribune is a verifiable source just for one. Wjhonson 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

Second time I've chanced across your name on something - good to get a sense of Wikipedians overlapping, but you really ought to cut down that HTML in your sig. Unless you've written it to look great in a specific browser that I'm unfamiliar with, the following alternative cuts 18 characters off of it:-

Just zis <b style="border:1px;padding:2px;color:#fff;background:#008;">Guy</b> you know?

Although to be honest it does seem a bit jarring and unprofessional to have a big blue word in a signature; I was expecting an excited new Misplaced Pages user rather than an admin, when I hit your userpage. But I guess it's your call. --McGeddon 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for it is so I can easily spot my sig in long conversations. Just zis Guy you know? 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, just so you know that it breaks up the flow for everyone who isn't you, and makes editing slightly disorientating when the sig takes up a full two lines of source (which the abbreviated HTML would at least cut down, if you feel like using it). Misplaced Pages's signature guidelines have a few thoughts on this sort of thing, if you've not seen them. --McGeddon 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Seen them, enforced them. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My unsolicited vote: It creates no real problem for anyone. There are things worth griping about; this isn't on the list. Scheinwerfermann 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects for British style

For british locations like here, would it be a good/bad idea to create British-location style redirects (i.e. "Somewhere (Shire)" redirects to "Somewhere, Shire")? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, unless people are asking or it's a common alias. I live in Reading, Berkshire not Reading (Berkshire), but I do know that St. Albans (Herts) was common usage A Long Time Ago, not sure if it still is. Er.... dunno :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK....I just remember seeing a user somewhere who used commonwealth english all angry about the comma construction...they made a big deal about the parentheses style, but I guess it isn't all they made it out to be ;) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In case you miss this reply in the noise

I opposed the Sean Black RfA. I have never had any contact with Sean as an admin, certainly no negative experiences. But on doing research he failed to meet the qualities that I would like to see in an admin. This was not an oppose vote based on malice. I would like to think it was quite objective. Last time I checked people can oppose for any reason they like, although weight will only be given to reasonable rationales. I think that creating a list of those that oppose, for who knows what reason, is well beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour in this community. That does not extend any level of good faith to those that decide to oppose an RfA. So those that question us for asking the role of such a list, with the argument "you need to assume good faith", are totally hypocritical (i don't think you have made this argument but many admins have.) Below is your original comment with my reply. Thanks for taking time to see this from a different perspective. David D. (Talk) 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sean was a good admin before, nobody produced any credible evidence that he had abused admin tools, he requested desysopping, resysopping should be a formality. I don't think we should even have had a vote, since there was no reason to desysop him other than his own request. To my reading (based on a quick survey) a number of the Oppose votes were sour grapes from people against whom he'd taken (well-founded) actions. This might be a sampling error, of course. Anyway, User:Danny made a fair case I thought. I invoke the No Big Deal clause, myself. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you wrote "nobody produced any credible evidence that he had abused admin tools". My oppose vote was not based on his use or misuse of the tools. My oppose opinion was based on the fact that he seems to bite people in the process of using the tools. If someone had made any effort to defend my olppose on this basis I may well of reconsidered my vote. Instead there was quite an ad hom campaign against those that had expressed this opinion. Such comments are not reallly the best way to try and change someones opinion. On top of that my opinon was further cemented when Sean wrote:

"I don't. I compose edit summaries to inform whomever may read them what the edit I'm making is. They sometimes express frustration, because I am sometimes frustrated. They sometimes express humour and good cheer, because I am sometimes happy. They sometimes express apathy, because I am sometimes apathetic. They sometimes express rudeness, because I am sometimes rude. They are sometimes blunt, because I am sometimes blunt. They always express humanity, because I am always human. I see no reason to pretend that I have no emotions under the guise of being "civil"; if my emotions are extreme to the point that I will do something I will regret, then I cease editing."

I would be more comforted to see him stop editing before he becomes rude, as well as before his emotions become extreme. I look for admins that can stay cool in stressful situations, count to ten before writing the edit summary or recuse themselves from the situation. He may be human but i'd rather not see the worst traits of humanity being expressed from the wikipedia admins. Everyone is always talking about community but how can we have a community if people express all their negitivity when people disagree. An admin should be able to reason with those that diagree. I have no problem with admins being firm but i want to seem some sensible rationale too.

Finally he ignored the very valid question from El C with regard to the B list; El C asked:

"I notice that the contents of User:Kelly Martin/B (Deleted revision as of 3 July 2006) features the following . Then, the next edit by Sean Black features the following addition: Xoloz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) My question, then, is what was meant by that addition, and if you have time, maybe a hint as to the purpose behind the entire thingy."

Why wouldn't he answer such a question if the list was a joke or something trivial. This kind of backroom chatter and list making has no apparent purpose for the benefit of the encylopedia. What ever happened to AGF? It is quoted ad naseum at those that question the existence of the list. So where is the good faith of those editors that created the list in the first place? Seriously, a list of those that oppose you in an RfA. What good could possibly come from such a list? ElC deserved an answer to this question.

So, overall, my oppose that start off as quite weak grew stronger and stronger. I am now sure i made the right choice. David D. (Talk) 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone has the right to oppose (or indeed support) a candidate for any good reason, and that good reason doesn't have to seem like a good reason to anyone else but themselves. But I stand by my comments: he was a good admin before, I see no reason to doubt he'll be a good admin again. Since he voluntarily gave up the sysop bit I think its reapplicaiton should be a formality, absent any evidence that he abused his status before. This is supposed to be no big deal. This is in any case well within the range of closing 'crat's discretion. If you find Sean abusing his admin status there will be plenty of people in line to join the lynch-mob :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Heritage Fleet

Hey JzG, sorry to bother you but would you mind taking another look at the above article? I don't understand how it isn't a copyright violation. It seems to me that a couple of words have been removed and the sentences reversed but it's basically the same text. The second paragraph of the Wiki text is nearly word-for-word:

Wiki text:

Lady Hopetoun and Port Jackson Marine Steam Museum, the forerunner of the Sydney Heritage Fleet, was founded in 1965 by a public-spirited individuals to preserve Sydney’s steam yacht "Lady Hopetoun". The organisation later changed it's name to the Sydney Maritime Museum. In 1998 the museum adopted the trading name Sydney Heritage Fleet, which remains the name today

Aust Heritage Fleet text:

The Lady Hopetoun and Port Jackson Marine Steam Museum, the forerunner of the Sydney Heritage Fleet, was founded in 1965 by a group of public-spirited individuals to preserve Sydney’s 1902 VIP steam yacht Lady Hopetoun. The organisation later became known as the Sydney Maritime Museum Limited. In 1998 the museum adopted the trading name Sydney Heritage Fleet. The Fleet now comprises 10 historical vessels which is amongst the largest such collection in Australia.

Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a rewording (albeit minor) of a very small subset of the web page, which may therefore be fair use, and the subject is unquestionably encyclopaedic; I say give them the benefit of the doubt and ask the author to clean it up. Or tag it again and see if another admin will bite, I don't claim to be an expert,. just doing my best. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you're doing your best, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just don't understand. And FWIW, the person who posted that article has posted multiple copyvios despite warnings. Thanks anyway, I appreciate your help. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No implication implied :-) Looking at it, yes, they are of differing degrees of blatant. I think I might just rouge it up a bit after all. Just zis Guy you know? 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for move, Headlight → Headlamp

Attempted to rename Headlight to Headlamp, unable to do so because Headlamp contains a redirect with an edit history. Rationale: While it is common for the two terms to be used interchangeably in colloquial speech, headlampis the technically correct term for the device itself. All regulations and technical specifications worldwide refer to headlamps, and not to "headlights". All manufacturers of such devices consider themselves makers of headlamps, not "headlights". All human-factors and traffic-safety researchers worldwide refer in their works to headlamps, not to "headlights". "Headlight" properly refers to the light itself, produced and distributed by the headlamp(s). This is certainly a distinction that would not be honored in everyday conversation or informal writing, but we're writing an encyclopedia here, so precision counts. Talking about "sealed beam lights" or "round lights" or "rectangular lights" or "replaceable-bulb lights" might be acceptable in a stylistic analysis in which the devices are significantly only by dint of their existence; such usage, though, is technically improper in a discussion of lighting devices. This article's improper title has been a low-level irritant for quite some time; 193.202.109.254's attempt to standardize on one term, even though s/he picked the wrong one, is the impetus for requesting a pagemove to correct that impropriety. Your assistance would be appreciated. TIA, Scheinwerfermann 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop

I don't want to hear no more nonsense from you. Stop harrassing me. There was not a word that would mention policies or rules in what you called "wikilawyering". By posting this, I am not continuing the "spamming" as you called it, as today, I am just giving this new version of the message to you, so don't vandalize your talkpage by deleting it please:

User:Azmoc/Reconsider Azmoc 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)