Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG/Archive 8

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:JzG

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Colin Kimbrell (talk | contribs) at 04:35, 22 January 2006 (→Mr. Gastrich: Count me in on any RFC.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:35, 22 January 2006 by Colin Kimbrell (talk | contribs) (→Mr. Gastrich: Count me in on any RFC.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Beware of the tigers!
This page may contain strong opinons. You have been warned.

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)

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)
ifnord would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact ifnord to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/JzG/Archive 8. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

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:

  1. Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
  2. Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
  3. Free subscription to our informative newsletter
  4. Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
  5. Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
  6. Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
  7. 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!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, Guy! I hope I will continue to meet your standards of "sound judgment and open mind." The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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)
Misplaced Pages's Very Important Brew (W-VIB). I CyclePat award JzG with these Working Man's Beers, (which have images of Barnstar's at the bottom & are made of 100% recycled electrons.) Congratulations on your overwhelming votes on Rfa. Cheers. feel free to drink and wikify!

Articles For Deletion

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

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

Hi, JzG/Archive 8, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. Congratulations, you've just been made a sysop! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except junk like "aojt9085yu8;3ou BOB IS GAY"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Misplaced Pages up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun!

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

Thank you, thank you all. "Once a month on a Friday there's a man / with a mop and bucket in his hand / he whistles as he rubs and scrubs away / to him it's just another working day" - The Equestrian Statue, Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band. (rummage) - there, it's on iTunes now :-) Now, if anyone can help me with the business of a template and maybe even a script for those hundred thank-you notes... Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken, sir, there is no article by that name ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing who they give sysop powers to these days! --kingboyk 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Adminship mentoring

Hi JzG - glad to see you got promoted! As I mentioned at the ANI talk I'd be happy to help you out. The first thing new administrators usually try out is clearing the CSDs, that is deleting the obvious speedy candidates. As for A7s etc. I'd try to be either especially conservitive starting out though - for the ones that are not tagged properly either go the afd route (nearly all the tagged speedies are candidates for afd in one way or another) or in other cases just remove the tag with an appropriate edit summary. I can have a look over them if you'd like when you're done :). WhiteNight 11:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How did you guess I'd head straight over to CAT:CSD? ;-) - comment on your talk page. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Good calls - Soundcircuit does not assert notability and some admins I know would probably speedy it under the "group" clause of A7, but for now that is highly contriversial when applied to websites etc.. Superstreng is a good call as well as Soopermuse, although in the latter (Soopermus) when an article is not wikified much about 60% of the time it is a copyvio so I'd do a quick google, and if you are able to find what it is a copyvio from delete it with a message as something like "A8 - ". (if it is in the last 48 hours of course, see the A8 criteria for more info) WhiteNight 11:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I'm trying to tread the fine line between WP:BITE and allowing idiots to waste the community's time :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 11:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right - that's always the problem. Basically as an admin what you want to try to do is, as you mention, exhaust all CSD criteria options before sending to AFD in order to avoid a moot conversation over the subject :). I wouldn't worry too much about deleting a new page due to WP:BITE - just explain the situation if you get a complaint, maybe userfying it if neccesary, and as mentioned trying to be cautious of the wording of your afds :). WhiteNight 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Once you are done and/or feel you have a grip on speedy candidates the next thing you might want to try is newpage patrol (a.k.a. looking and every new page and deleting/afding/tagging them with "cleanup"/"not verified"/"pov" etc. tags - Special:Newpages) - in essense it is basically the same thing as CAT:CSD, but a bit more intense and faster-paced. Feel free to leave me a message if you have questions :). WhiteNight 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Flagged

The vandal did edit after my last warning. If you check his contributions and his Talkpage you can see that I gave him a level 3 warning message for his vandalism in article Leet, afterwards I gave him a level 4 warning message for his vandalism in article BR. Then (if you look at his contribs) you can see that he vandalized the article Newbie. Then I proceeded to report him. I realize that this is an IP address shared by multiple users but efforts to contact Epping Forest College must be made. Thanks for listening. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 13:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning was 12:43, last edit at 12:39. I did block but unblocked again when another admin pointed this out, hence the message to you. For the record I'd have been happy to block earlier given past history, but I'm new at this game :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 13:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, I'm sure he'll strike again anyway :P --– sampi (talk•contrib) 13:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

82.40.120.5

Cheers, It seems they were working through one of the Perthshire cats and had done A-M... Thanks/wangi 14:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's in BlueYonder's dynamic block, as far as I know at present, so I can only really block for an hour or so at a time unless the problem escalates - let me know (by email if you want) if it happens again; I will treat that or any new address in the same block with the same behaviour as the same account and block with no firther warning, I think. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SIMPLY SOFTWARE NZ LIMITED

"Try standing for adminship with that on your platform and see how far you get :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? / AfD? 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)"

  • And as you know my comments were made relating to an article that was clearly ad spam. I would not condone speedy deletions for any other purpose. If the contents of that article were placed on another semi-related article they would be instantly reverted as ad spam, you wouldn't go through an AfD type process to remove it. The same should also happen if a seperate article is created for the ad spam. The number of obvious ad spam AfD's are making the whole AfD system unmanagable IMHO. —gorgan_almighty 17:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know. The problem is that my (fairly extensive) experience on AfD shows that a minority of articles which start as adspam - vanispamcruftisement to give the technical term ;-) - are actually valid corporations and get saved, cleaned up and turned into decent articles. You want me boiled in oil for deleting one of those on my first day as an admin? :-P
Also, this week it's adspam, last month it was band vanity. Who knows what next. No doubt there will be debate about adding nn-company to the speedy criteria but it isn't yet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: block

Sure - that's ok. If you are going to use templates though I'd make sure you are using the one that partains to that situation (i.e. you used the vandalism one for the linkspam) and I'd also be sure to mention the length of the block too WhiteNight 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bah! Is there a full list of the templates anywhere? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure - see the table at Template_talk:Test5 WhiteNight 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just the hammer. Thanks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the template master list is at Misplaced Pages:Templates WhiteNight 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, saw that - it made my brain melt :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Legislative candidates

Hi,

It doesn't look like there will ever be a resolution to the legislative candidates discussion. After looking at some articles on Canadian candidates, I've come to see your point. A lot of the Canadian candidates have virtually nothing about them online except their own bios, no political experience and no opinions of their own beyond their party's platform. If you look at what I said under "Reviving the discussion," you can see that I've based the idea on your counter-proposal, with the main difference being that I would allow for the creation of an article on the candidate after enough independent, verifiable information is gathered to create an article beyond stub size. What do you think? -- Mwalcoff 00:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I replied over there, let me know if I have not addressed the point properly. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, could you then clarify your position on my second proposal? I think the only significant difference between my second proposal and your counter proposal is that mine allows for the creation of articles on candidates if there's enough on them and they meet the standards of verifiability. -- Mwalcoff 23:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

ultimate destiny?

I didn't do anything to Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny but I saw it on Newgrounds and I wanted to know more about it. I think that is what Misplaced Pages is for. And since it is not a paper encyclopedia, we should keep it. I would like it to be reverted back because I believe it is a somewhat worthy article. schyler 01:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We have Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny which redirects to Neil Cicierega. I don't know what else we are supposed to have, have I done something? You'll have to remind me, I have a few thousand articles on my watchlist and I am a bear of very little brain :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 09:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

York@54

Cheers, done the move, now the deleted edits need to be restored as per step 4 of Misplaced Pages:How to rename (move) a page#Fixing cut and paste moves. – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 14:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC) That's ok, seems a bloody confusing way of doing it to me, oh well. Thanks. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 15:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Why not just move it in the first place? - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Jaworski

I’m quite disturbed by your deletion of of the Paul Jaworski. The original article was a one line about a Paul Jaworski born 1989 and no other info. It was speedy deleted and quite rightly. However, the article was recreated and about a notable figure who participated in the First armoured car robbery and was given the eletcric chair as documented here: The Great Detroit News Payroll Robbery and can be found in several books including this one: The Violent Years: Prohibition and the Detroit Mobs. I find it hard to believe that you have knowing deleted this subject based on the basis that a separate and unrelated article going by the same name was deleted, thus I believe that you’ve made an unintentional mistake. Englishrose 16:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You could well be right, although what I dleted was substantially identical to what Stifle deleted an hour or so earlier. I'm undeleting now, will send back to AfD for a proper debate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for your speedy action, I'm as confused as anyone how everything occured but at least the factual article looks like it will be saved. Thanks. Englishrose 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Jaworski

I took a look at the deletion page. Everyone seems to be in accord that there is no reason to delete the article. The article is obviously not about me. I was not alive in 1927. Paulwithap 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


I don't know about day one. The original page was just some bullshit. The current page is factual. Paulwithap 21:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as the deleted edit history was concerned, it was day 1. But what do I know? I'm new at this game. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

neutrality

the phrase "certifying the basis for this dispute" is not really stated clearly. what it has always meant in practice is that you endorse the RFC. in other words, you have personally tried to resolve the dispute and you think the unresolved dispute merits an RFC. i urge you to decertify, if you think it's really a baseless charge. otherwise, probably a hundred people are going to waste their time looking through it, as neutrality is well-known. regards, Derex 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap! We do not need that! heading right over... - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a little late...

but congratulations on making admin! -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

BEML

I've expanded this company's stub, and if you get a chance, I'd like to ask you to revisit your nomination on WP:AFD.-Colin Kimbrell 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have voted - actually I only AfDd it becasue it was speedy tagged with an invalid criterion, so my usual action is to list at AfD. When I'm a bit more confident with these admin powers I'll probably not bother AfDing, but it does mean there is no ambiguity, a strong keep consensus should stave off any future speedy tags. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that approach. It's better to bend over backwards on protocol for deletion, so that everything's clear and above-board. Also, congrats on the RFA; sorry I missed seeing your nom. -Colin Kimbrell 18:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I cluelessly advertised it a bit, and got stamped on (rightly) so after that I kept it quiet :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gobacktotexas

Wow, that's quite a "contribution" history :\. What I'd do is use the spam template warnings (i.e. Template:spam) a couple times - once you've warned him once or twice and he does it again the usual block time for linkspam is 48 hours (I don't particularily know who invented this, you are free to use your own time judgement too...). WhiteNight 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, either the spam warnings or maybe a custom one if it isn't his blog in particular (just make sure there is ample warning) :) WhiteNight 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, warned now. I used {{spam2}}, I doubt that will have much effect, and to be honest no block would hurt the 'pedia since he has contributed virtually nothign other than spam :-( - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gastrich

You're absolutely right. He's made it clear in the past that he view the project as a means to promote his particular pov rather than being here to contribute to the project in a meaningful way. I've found that he bears constant watching for POV, NPA, and most recently, skewing votes. What to do? Generally, keep an eye on the situation, work together, and insist he follows all policies, all the time. Specifically, discussion of votes from any coordinated voting by a cadre he assembles should be moved to the particular AFD's talk page for discussion by others outside that cadre as to the appropriateness of organizing a voting block specifically to skew AFDs. Remember, AFD is supposed to represent the community's viewpoint, not any particular subset of it. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, it will be just like the school debate but a magnitude worse. The deluge of minor preachers and self professed ministers has begun. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to nip it in the bud. I propose raising an RfC; this tips the balance for me. Gastrich has been disruptive ever since he first used the alleged sock account big lover (talk · contribs) to create the article which now forms his user page. WP:ISNOT a soapbox but the existence of suggests that he disagrees. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, JzG, you're fighting the good fight here, but these articles just seem to keep coming. I'm concerned that there's a fundamental, irreconcilable difference of what counts as notable, and I note that a lot of the keep votes are from people that identify as evangelicals and Catholic Alliance types on their user pages here. In other words, one sides sees the dispute as about encyclopedicity, but the other sees it as about an attack on their faith. I just can't see a happy resolution here, at least not by talking about this piecemeal, article by article. I support the RfC option but I'm pessimistic. rodii 00:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think it's beyonfd a joke. I'm AfDing things because I was looking for an objective review per my thoughts at user:JzG/AfD; that is not what is happening. I do not usually vote on articles I nominate, I feel myself being sucked in to advocating an outcome which is not what I want. What I want is for barrow-pushers like Gastrich to pay their own hosting charges and hot use the 'pedia to push their neo-pharisee POV. As you say, it ain't going to happen. So yes an RFC is probably the best solution. There's plenty of evidence of others trying to tackle Gastrich on his m:MPOV issues. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Gastrich disrupts every forum he shows up in. Every single one. It's what he does. Well, that and spamming. Mark K. Bilbo 00:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. He's disrupting Misplaced Pages for his own agenda. I had the misfortune to run into him on talk.origins. Ugh. And now he's here. His outright use of meatpuppets to swing the vote was disgusting and I can't believe he's getting away with it. It's so obvious he's abusing process. I pointed this out to an admin but he wanted to see evidence on the exterior site (JCSM) that shows he was soliciting votes. Well guess what, Gastrich already scrubbed that from his webpage. He probably realized how bad it made him look. But he already had the desired effect ... he got a bunch of people to come into the AfDs and vote delete. I definitely suggest an RfC and I will be more than happy to comment in it. You guys start preparing the diff lists of all of the various times he's found like-minded users through userboxes or whatever and "politely suggested" that they vote keep in this AfD.

There's also a section about this on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I think this should be raised on RFC. It's too late for me to write the citation now but I will let you know shortly that I have done so in order that you can certify the basis for the dispute if desired. Stifle 00:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you decide to write a RFC, count me in on it. His behavior was outrageous, and what's worse, he showed no remorse or inclination to change when I asked him about it on his talk page. If it's not addressed, I'm 100% convinced that it'll keep happening. -Colin Kimbrell 04:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, would you please look at James Kisina for me? This guy was until yesterday pretty much unknown. He's just been arrested on a drugs charge in Australia, which has catapulted his name into the news - not because the case is extraordinary but because his sister is Schapelle Corby, a very famous Australian-in-prison-overseas. Do you think Kisina's article should stay?

I would boldly merge the two, and if anyone objects suggest that it be taken to DRV (or ask me). I can't see any sense in keeping that article, it really is trivia. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jezchat, a very bad website article which doesn't have many comments yet. --kingboyk 22:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ugh! It's also apparently 404 much of the time. But we must not stack those votes. Perhaps I had better review the current crop at AfD... - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. --kingboyk 00:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

AfDs

Is there anything I should know about that led up to these borderline notable Christian AfDs? It seemed to me that Robert Morey was pretty notable from what I could ascertain. My point of reference is Ali Sina whose article has been kept multiple times and has probably made me more of an inclusionist. The others I have read I'm not sure about but Morey seemed pretty notable with references to him by Jack Chick and such. They all seem like they might be more notable than Ali Sina. Hmm. gren グレン 02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles Pack entry

Why did you delete the external link to free prophecy videos featuring Charles Pack? Please mark your edits in the box that says "Edit summary." --Jason Gastrich 10:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The admin rollback button does not include an edit summary option. See article's Talk page. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I replied to you there. --Jason Gastrich 10:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

St. Albans School

So, you St. Albans is older, has more illustrious graduates, and is more prestigious; huzzah. My feeling is that the American St. Albans has the unqualified name because it has been around on Misplaced Pages for much longer - almost a year. Also, Misplaced Pages stared as a primarily American project, so it makes a little sense that it would go first. So I guess I'm saying in a complicated and sarcastic way that I support the move, with a disambiguation page. After all, both schools have a good relationship and participate in an exchange.

PS, There is also high school in St. Albans, Vermont, although I'm not sure after whom it is named.

That's called "squatter's rights" ;-) I think a dab page is the best answer, especially if there is a third candidate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Why should I care

I've moved this to the correct namespace (you spelt "Wikiepdia" wrong :) — sjorford (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thnak yuo ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right.

It was very poor.</NPAviolation> --SarekOfVulcan 22:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dorim Kim

You should check some of Mr. Gastrich's AFD nominations, if you haven't looked in on them lately. It appears that when confronted about soliciting votes by spamming talk pages, he started soliciting votes instead by sending mass e-mails to users with "Christian" and "Inclusionist" userboxes. What do you think is the right approach to take on this? I'm not as familiar with policy guidelines as I probably should be, but I'm sure what he did isn't kosher. -Colin Kimbrell 05:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I just wanted you to know that your anti-Christian bias has been noted and you are being watched. --Jason Gastrich 08:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! You simply have no idea. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Another empty threat from Gastrich...whom, it should be pointed out, is also being watched...and exposed. - WarriorScribe 10:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Threat? I suppose so; I have no problem being watched (unlike Gastrich I don't use sockpuppets). But the claim is absurd - I am a Christian, a member of the church council (actually the inner circle, the Standing Committee), I am a foundation governor at the church school, crucifer, chalice administrator, chorister and so on. The claim that I am anti-Christian is uttely ludicrous! Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you're an atheist pretending to be a Christian because you hate Jesus and are trying to destroy Christianity! You Are Being Watched!!!! And being watched by Gastrich can mean... being... erm... you know... watched. I mean, he'll look at you. Scary huh? Mark K. Bilbo 14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To Jason, anyone that disagrees with his narrow interpretation of Chritianity is an unbeliever. Strangely he is willing to use Christians, whom he would normally disagree with theologically, in a forced coallition if it suits his needs (AfD). But the're still going to hell. I suspect that many in his own Church congregation would go against him if they saw his actions. Also remember that 'once saved always saved' is Jason's motto. Thus, he is ALLOWED to be unchristian to get his own way. It is for this reason that he seems so hypocritical and twists every letter of law to suit his own agaenda rather than interpreting the spirit of the law. You will find he commonly says i have done nothing wrong. He really believes it too. The most recent case of this is the meatmeat puppets and vote rigging. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Rubython

I'm reverting to your stub, by the way, which is what I should have done in the first place - well done, that was exactly right and it was my mistake going back to the wrong version. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That looks the best move. I'm busy this week, but I have access to the NewsBank newspaper archive and can try to get a more balanced picture. Re the "baddie" version: the individual items about litigation history and failed companies do check out, but the overall feel is still of bias by selection of negative material. As you say, litigation and having business ventures fail is par for the course on the newspaper publishing circuit, so I don't think he's as unique in that respect as painted. TR's version, OTOH, is certainly a whitewash for failing to mention that aspect at all. Tearlach 09:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree on both counts. Private companies are voluntarily wound up all the time, there is no indication that half of those closures are anything else, and I have a degree of sympathy for anyone who's had to pay £8,500 damages but many times that in legal fees to Carter-Fuck and Partners. He is probably just a wide-boy, not a crook ;-)
Which reminds me of another bit of subtle bias, the repeated use of "prosecuted", which is definitely a slur intended to foster the auru of criminality. Libel suits come under civil law, where the term isn't used. Tearlach 10:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
True enough. I've been keeping an eye, the POV pushers seem to be in abeyance at present, but I am ready to semi-protect or protect if necessary. Feel free to add a {disputed} tag if you want. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 10:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There are rather a lot of slurs by association in the article as originally written, too. I'm not surprised the guy was a bit angry. --kingboyk 13:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Diploma mills

The more I have seen of these diploma mills on Misplaced Pages (and read up on them when rewriting articles), the more convinced I have become that we should cover them. We should perhaps not have an individual article on each one, as many of the "virtual mills" are just online fronts for the same businesses, but we should try to cover the main players in the business (there is an international operation called University Degree Programs, or something like that, that stands behind a couple of dozen of them alone), their phony accreditation agencies and all that. They generate a lot of spam both through e-mail and on the web and Misplaced Pages can do some public good by providing NPOV information. In some form, diploma mills have been around for a long time. Somebody with access to the OED could check when the word "diploma mill" is first used, but I think it is quite old (about 1900 or even earlier) - a History of diploma mills could probably be rather entertaining. :) Tupsharru 12:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting and valid subject, for sure. I wonder how the Gastriches of this world would react to such an article? There is one way to find out, of course... - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 12:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two earliest usages from OED. David D. (Talk) 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1923 Congress. Rec. 12 Dec. 241/2 If the United States mails have been used by self-styled medical institutions and organizations known popularly as ‘diploma mills’ for purposes of fraud in connection with the sale of degrees or diplomas. 1936 Jrnl. Higher Educ. 7 157 A ‘diploma mill’ in Ohio was deprived of its charter in 1900, when investigation..disclosed that the president had sold M.A. degrees for $25 each.
Impressive! I suggest that redlink goes blue :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll look around for some references and begin a stub in a few days. Tupsharru 20:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you support this?

In reference to my full rebuttal to "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible," you said, "It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it." Can you support this? As far as I've seen, one man and a couple of his friends have attacked me and my book (yes, both, which makes their input highly suspect). There are far more positive responses (indicated by 4 out of 5 stars) than negative ones. So, you've got some "splainin" to do. --Jason Gastrich 20:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, very Christian of you, Jason: "For all that is in the world ... the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." In any case, 2 of the reviews need to be tossed as they are by the same two people (thus we have 26 reviewers). If we ditch the anonymous (a statistically valid practice) we have 21 reviews. Total points awarded by those 21 reviewers equal 71, or 3.4 out of 5. In addition, it's rather hard to take as an unbiased review someone who is clearly a devotee of Gastrich. if we ditch those people as biased the book gets a 1.5 out of 5. A true review might be one found in the NYT (not that they bothered, it didn't meet their standards). Jim62sch 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I support "It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it"? Absolutely. Especially in the context of ending an edit war.
You are adding links to your own work. That is usually considered vanity or spam - actually, not just adding, edit warring to add a link to a site you own. I have some experience of these disputes; the only examples I can call to mind of site owners edit warring to reinsert their own sites have been linkspam.
As stated on the Talk page, neither of the sources you are edit warring about appear to be reliable sources per usual guidelines, and Amazon reviews are absolutely not reliable - not only are they subject to inclusion bias (few people buy religious books unless they already agree with their conclusions), reviews are not rtraceable back to an identifiable source - authors and PRs have been known to use sockpuppets to puff their own books. I see no pressure from other established editors on that article for inclusion, and the usual approach in these cases is for the established editors on an article to agree what goes in and what goes out.
Nor can I see the hurry. It is not as if readers can't be trusted to make up their own minds about something, after all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 21:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Given Gastrich's history of vote manipulation here, I wouldn't put too much stock in his touting his book getting 4 out of 5 stars at Amazon. Amazon reviews are notoriously easy to skew with shills, that needs to weighed against his behavior here. FeloniousMonk 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It's just simple math.  :) Jim62sch 00:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

mistaken deletion of image

Hi, I think you mistakenly deleted Image:MixedBreedFace1 wb.jpg when cleaning up that hoax. - This image isn't a hoax, This is a good and properly licensed imaged, uploaded by an administrator, and the dog has real titles :) - It's used on the hybrid vigor article dog page (featured article), and many others, as well as in the dog stub tempates and such - hundreds of pages link to this one. I restored the image from a wikimirror - just thought I would let you know. - Trysha 00:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

List of SWIFT codes

It's been a month, I think. I'm thinking I would like to try relisting this on WP:AfD, but I'm not totally sure on how you relist something, the 3 step process is a bit vague on what name the second subpage should have, is it just 2 on the end? If not, do you think you might be able to remind me how? I am willing to be the lister. Or, do you think waiting a bit longer is the way to go. That article just has to go, in my view (I work in the industry, at least part of the time)... Thoughts? (I'll watch here for reply) ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)