User talk:JzG/Archive 24 - Misplaced Pages

< User talk:JzG

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arbustoo (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 27 October 2006 (→Diploma mills: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute (2 nomination)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:16, 27 October 2006 by Arbustoo (talk | contribs) (→Diploma mills: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute (2 nomination))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User Talk:JzG/Archive-Dec-2024. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Wikistatus: I'm off to Düsseldorf to sing the Missa Solemnis and won't be back until Sunday night 29 October. Ask at the noticeboard for any urgent intervention.

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-Aug, August 2006 /Archive-Sep, September 2006 /Archive-Oct-2006 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

Eatonsh=Continueddonations=Returnoftheman

With literally no break at all, permanently blocked user Eatonsh aka Continueddonations is back, this time exclusively focusing on the main Schizophrenia and the Talk:Schizophrenia page. That they all are the same user is obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that IMHO it does not need any further proof. However, I am not sure how to deal with it any further; I admit I am somehow involved in this by now (he has called me a Nazi perhaps once too often by now), and reverting him all the time is a drag and looks, in spite of my explanations, odd to some other users on the page in question, some of which are helping him. Thus, I am herewith asking some of the users, admins and ArbCom members who were involved in this case previously to check and to either suggest what to do or to initiate some remedial course of action. Many thanks in advance. Ebbinghaus 23:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just a note that this user is still engaging in violations of Misplaced Pages content and conduct guidelines using the sockpuppet Cestlogique (talk • contribs); Icankeepthisupforever (talk · contribs) is another probable sock. --Muchness 08:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Please report on WP:ANI for faster response, though. Guy 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do so in future. Regards. --Muchness 09:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

67.77.215.178...BenH sock?

Hello. I noticed that you have already blocked one of BenH's IP sockpuppets. The style and contributions of this particular IP in the headline look just like the contribs of BenH and the other sock. Could you please check if my hunch is a correct one, because I have never reported anyone like this and have no idea how else to do it except asking a familiar admin like you. Thanks. Thistheman 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, characteristic. Blocked, deploying rollback. Guy 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

United States military nuclear incident terminology

Regarding the deletion review of United States military nuclear incident terminology, what do you mean by "In what way is this not a copy of a primary source"? I thought the deletion was regarding A5 (transwiki articles--specifically Wiktionary, in this case) -- not copyright problems. What primary source are you referring to? Am I missing something? -- Renesis (talk)

...Tuatafa Hori.

Again.

She was randomly deleted.

Again.

I was told to post sources.

She was deleted after I posted FOUR credible sources.

And not a single explanation to me.

What the flip?!

Bohemienne815 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Again "she" was deleted as functionally unverifiable and previously proven to a very high degree of credibility as a hoax. There is absolutely nothing random about this. Here's a hint: if your best source is a Geocities page, you're better off looking at another subject. Guy 09:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you didn't read the references, because it wasn't just a geocities page this time. I listed three other sources... two books and an article. I'm not sure what's so uncredible about two books and an article. I just don't think it's fair that she keeps getting deleted. She's basically my favorite princess ever, and I can't stand seeing her without a wikipedia page. :( Bohemienne815 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a reply. Just to remind you. Bohemienne815 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You've had all the answer you're getting on this one. Guy 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Whatever. I'm sorry, I know I must be getting annoying... I just want to clear the air. If you all honestly think she's a hoax or whatever and doesn't belong on Wiki then fine. I'll stop. I'm just really interested in oceanian culture, and I think she deserves a page. What would be the harm, after all.. I doubt that many people would even notice the article. And I can't help but wonder why my other three sources were ignored. But.. I will cease and I hope that this doesn't lower my credibility or ruin any sort of editor to editor relationship between us :)

Thank you to you and Wiki for at least allowing me to try, but I'm sorry to say I don't think I'll be contributing much more. Bohemienne815 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A large part of the probem is that you have not contributed anything other than this, which was discussed in depth after previous deletions. Creating Tuatafahori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was also a bad move. Sources which can't be readily accessed are of no value where there is no editor in good standing to vouch for them, especially where there is nothing "out there" to back them up and where there is credible evidence to support the idea of a hoax. Guy 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Buri

whats the problem with the patrick buri page ? --212.203.115.157 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The creator reacts hysterically to anything other than its preferred text; it won't even allow the name to be spelled out on Talk pages discussing its deletion. Guy 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

... to the extent that I have just had to revert their change to the section title and link above. Guy 09:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, an anonymous user purporting to be George Brown opposed the deletion of a vanity page for Patrick Buri, and recreated the page enough times that JzG had to protect the Patrick Buri page against recreation.. The anonymous editor (presumably but not certainly George Brown) is now deleting any occurence of the name "Patrick Buri" from talk pages, probably in order to prevent Buri's wikipedia history from showing up on google searches. TheronJ 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall who the anon claimed to be, and there are several sockpuppets involved (e.g. Victorysurge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I had an exchange with the user under one or toher of his names and undertook to remove all the previous history of warnings etc. by deleting his previous user and talk pages, and the protected-deleted which appears in Google, provided he drop the idea of an article on Buri, which was deleted by consensus and supported at review, but the stupid sod promtly re-created it with a laudatory edit summary so I salted it again. And now he comes round every now and then to obfuscate the name because it spoils his Google presence (e.g. ). I had some sympathy to start with but this is clearly a monomaniac and having abused my good nature I am in BOFH mode over this one. Guy 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I have been looking at the details here, seems you are really in a BOFH mode, no need to insult anyone though !!!!!! are you suggesting this person is Patrick Buri, I can help here, why not, I found this persons web site and I send an email to find out and fix the situation once for all, I am waiting for a reply?--Netquantum 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the multiple accounts are owned by a child or associate of Buri. Whent he article was deleted, salted and endorsed at review, the user came to me and asked really nicely if he could be allowed to continue editing, and if the deleted-protected status could be removed, on the understanding that he would not immediately go and re-create the article, because the deleted-protected page appears near the top of the Google results for this subject (not too many hits in total, plus Misplaced Pages is highly ranked by Google). I did this, and of course he went straight in and re-created the article. I am all for giving people a fair chance, but when they take the piss and abuse my good nature I get annoyed, and this time round the article is staying salted. If you are desperately concerned to maintain the integrity of your Google results, do not add your pet subject to a site wihc says right there in the edit box that content may be edited mercilessly. And when this is pointed out to you, don't bloody do it again. Cluelessness and enthusiasm are forgivable, rank stupidity is not. Guy 11:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems that you are really pissed off with this one! I send an email to Buri's web site www.bankset.com general contact email address and asked for clarifiction I am still waiting for the info... Guy, just relax in the mean time, its not really very bad news, issues like that are part of wikipedia. Its a small problem, probably one person is making an obsession with this article.!!! I made some research and Buri seems to be known in Central Europe/Switzerland as a financial advisor guru, but seems that he has a Swiss background with education in the USA! whatever I'll get back to you when they send me more info --Netquantum 12:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not pissed off so much as I have lost patience. I will honour most good-faith requests, but if the requestor then abuses that goodwill they should not be surprised if a second request meets a more robust and less accepting response. Guy 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Xosa

Just out of curiosity, whatever happened to User:Xosa? --24.10.172.236 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Definite sock of Zephram Stark. Guy 22:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Xosa disagreed with User:SlimVirgin or User:Jayjg, the two Zionists who control content at Misplaced Pages. Guy's help is implicit because he's too worried about his position to note that the emperor has no clothes. If you don't believe me, look at Special:Contributions/Xosa and try to find anything that he did wrong. Xosa's only crime was not subjugating himself to Zionism, as Guy apparently has. --71.89.38.210 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, several people with detailed knowledge of your editing pattern back this diagnosis. You are not welcome here, please go and find another project to disrupt. Guy 11:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John Doolittle

Can you do me a favor? User:Devilmaycares has been adding some highly slanted material to John Doolittle... (oddly the exact stuff a banned user was adding previously). Maybe if two people admonish him he'll stop. ---J.S (t|c) 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess his response is a fairly clear indicator of his attitude. ---J.S (t|c) 15:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia

Hey, I remember talking to you the last time I tried to get Lostpedia an article. I remember you telling me to go through the right channels and stuff, and the reason I'm attempting to try and get the article back now is cause I felt we had some notability from the Lost Experience that would satisfy Misplaced Pages rules. Can I possibly ask you to read the comment I've made at Talk:Lostpedia#Discussion, as well as possibly review the deleted content using your Admin powers? Then, would it be possible to chat to you about your opinions and stuff? I don't want a great war going on, I'm just looking to maturely discuss points, as well as possibly hear about what it WILL take to justify an article (as from accounts right now it seems like "a miracle" lol). Thank you very much for all the help you've given me in the past, its very much appreciated. Cheers, --Nickb123 3rd 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time here, it was deleted and the deletion reviewed. Right now we have a link to it on Lost, which is fine by most people. Misplaced Pages is not a weeb directory, after all. Guy 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'm still on the "notability" page. Just as long as we keep the conflict mature eh. I don't want counterproductive name calling anymore than you do :-) --Nickb123 3rd 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability is subjective. I want to see evidence that Lostpedia has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatment in reliable secondary sources. What we have seen thus far is either unreliable or trivial. Guy 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WONK

Whoa!Looks like my asking questions about it led to its userifying. My apologies. :P — Nearly Headless Nick 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I am coming to the view that we should prune project space of all cruft and just have very short policies, slightly longer guidelines, and as little else as possible.

What do you think of this?

4. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Misplaced Pages? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Misplaced Pages administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies? — Nearly Headless Nick 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where bullet point 4 comes from (RFA?) but in order of importance:

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, a collection of that which is known from reputable sources, presented in neutral terms.
Misplaced Pages policies support the above.
Misplaced Pages guidelines and processes can give useful guidance in how policy is and should be applied.
You cannot either legislate or document Clue.

For my money a good admin should be able to demonstrate the ability to apply items 1 and 2 in the face of blind adherence to 3. Ideally this should be achieved through the process of debate, showing those who advocate the slavish following of process precisely why, in that specific case, the encyclopaedia can be improved by ignoring it. I pretty much ignore the questions on RFA anyway, preferring to look at how the editor actually works in practice. With time I could formulate the ideal set of answers to the questions and copy-paste them into the template, thus making them redundant :-) Who's going to answer "I want to be an admin so I can delete all articles on that non-fiction crapo and block everybody who is not a YTMNDer"? They really are a bit naive. Guy 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User we discussed earlier.

FYI, I have filed an RfC about his actions. JoshuaZ 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, with the reason given.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Menage article

Please see my recent comments at Talk:Ménage_à_trois#Image_again. I'd appreciate it if you would offer your opinion in the talk page, and leave the image alone so that others can comment too. We are trying to find a consensus, and basically, you are stepping on toes by changing the image when that is not wanted by the consensus. When we we submitted the RfC, we were asking for opinions on the matter, not asking for people to come change things according to their opinion. I appreciate that you have good intentions, and look forward to your opinion. Atom 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. The responsiobility for justifying inclusion is yours, you nead to leave it out for the duration. Guy 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I've tried to explain and be reasonable. I've explained that the image was already in the article, and that you removing it is the problem. I've tried explaining how there is a regional difference in the usage of Menage, and that where I am from (and in most english speaking countries) the term is used primarily as a sexual euphemism. Trying to change the minds of all non-french speaking people is a waste of time. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, just to respect the majority of us who have a different opinion.

When you remove the image from the article, it interferes with us trying to gain consensus. What I am trying to say diplomatically, is that you are being disuptive, rather than working with me, or others editing the page. Of course, you can behave as you wish, I am trying to indicate how that affects others. Reading the comments, it would seem that current consensus is for continuing inclusion of the image, and for having other images that reflect other aspects of the topic.

I focus primarily on sexology and sexuality articles, and watch hundreds of articles in that area of Misplaced Pages. Other than a change I recall you made in the "female ejaculation" article, I don't remember seeing you participate in this area much. AT any rate, images in sexology and sexuality articles are often controversial, which is why we are discussing issues like this at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. It is a work in progress, and has more to be done, but perhaps discusses issue relavent to this article.

Again, I am asking you to stop removing the image and participate in the process. Regards, Atom 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring two facts: first, you must justify inclusion, not I removal. That has been pointed out many times. Second, I am participating in the process. I'm just disagreeing with you. Apparently disagreeing with you is the same thing as not participating; this is known as tendentious editing. Guy 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube memes article

Notable YouTube memes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Are you suggesting that we actually remove (or merge and redirect) all the YouTube crap into this one article and then nuke anything which is not covered in multiple non-trivial reliable sources? If that is actually what you are saying then I will do what I can to help with the process, starting with seeing how much we can get on YouTube itself. The approach taken on YTMND where we leave the assessment of significance to the YTMND community and link to their own wiki for anyone who is interested is, I think, a good model, since it removes the inevitable tension between fans and policy. Removing multiple articles on passing fads, of whatever source, is and always will be a great idea, and I apologise if I have misunderstood your intent here. Guy 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy - my answer to your question is yes - this is exactly what I am proposing. I think it's better to link so-called YouTube celebrities to a single article linked to (or even part of) the main YouTube article. These people have done nothing to make them notable except posted videos on YouTube, and it just invites trivial facts that don't mean anything. I can't see how most of the articles could ever be expanded to a good or featured quality either (lonelygirl15 might be an exception if it turns out to be a long-running series or a movie or something...). I didn't know what YTMND was until you told me, so perhaps it was me that didn't understand. My aim is to remove the useless articles rather than create more and it was never my intention to have both. Let me know what I can do. (JROBBO 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

I think the best way to proceed is to merge and redirect any existing YouTube cruft into the main article at YouTube, until that section gets too bog - at which point it can either be pruned or forked. Images should not be necessary. Half a dozen items is probably about right. Guy 11:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to stop the debate on the Notable YouTube memes then so I can have a go at doing that before it gets deleted and I'm unable to access the information? JROBBO 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Any response to that? I don't know how to proceed if you agree with me that this is worth keeping... JROBBO 04:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello - any response? (JROBBO 03:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Opinion requested

Hi! As an admin who has not been previously involved, and as far as I know holds no strong opinion on the matter, could you take a look at this thread at AN/I? The user has been asked to stop by several administrators (Morven, Renata, Kusma and Freakofnurture) before, but the problem is still ongoing and a fresh view from an administrator would be appreciated. Many thanks, Aquilina 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Response

I have not pressed on or done anything of the sort. And yes, I did get the message. Perhaps I do not understand, can there be consensus building? Please, attempt to be kind and polite, and I will listen and obey. Smeelgova 09:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Smeelgova, Jossi is an admin, a long-term and respected member of the community who came here to give you some advice for your own good - namely that recruiting !votes in a deletion debate is one of the things which really gets people's backs up. The correct response is "Oh, OK." Please just learn from it and move on. Making a mistake once because you didn't know about something is No Big Deal. Arguing the toss about how it wasn't really a problem and it's all someoen else's fault and nobody should have the temerity to tell you that you've violated the community norms, well, that's the kind of thing that tends to have no good result. Guy 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so many new admins make me confused! I still maintain that since the original notice, I have ceased whatever it is that you all had a problem with. I have only continued this discussion because I still want more clarification. There was a reference to "consensus building" above. How does one go about "consensus building" without risking being summarily blocked by an all-knowing Misplaced Pages Administrator, who judges something not to be "consensus building" but something else, in their opinion? What is consensus building if you are prevented from posting on others talk pages about things that interest you, or things that you want to build consensus on? Yours, Smeelgova 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

So just accept that you have been informed of a community norm of which you were ignorant (God knows there are enough of them) and drop it. It's the argufying that causes the problem. One goes about consensus building through processes such as requests for comment. Guy 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice just given as advice, however I still don't appreciate your command tone/grammar "So just accept that...and drop it.", That's not nice. I can choose to accept what I wish and/or drop what I wish. There's no way that I should get blocked just for refusing to end a discussion about something on a talk-page (especially my own talk page), if I've already ceased the editing-actions in question. Anyway'... another question: OK, so you said I can go to requests for comment for "consensus building". But that looks like it's just for existing disputes. What about just things that I want to inform other editors of similar interests about? How can I get the word out to editors of similar mind, who may not mind a simple note on their talk pages? Is there a policy or procedure for this? Yours, Smeelgova 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Article RfCs exist to help establish consensus in content disputes. Whether or not you appreciate the tone of advice given to you is pretty much irrelevant: when someone tasked by the community with policing its policies tells you that you should not do something, the correct response is to learn and move on. Wikilawyering about the status of the advice, and the tone in whihc it is given, is considered disruptive. It really is no big deal unless you make it one; you seem intent on doing so. I'm sure that is not your aim, so again I suggest you just drop it. Guy 12:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova (talk · contribs) and AfDs; it's worse than you think

Hi Guy ... if you get a chance, please go back to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lobbying in AfDs and read my comments there. The actions of Smeelgova (talk · contribs) in one AfD are but a tiny part of a much bigger mess involving tendentious editing on a whole range of articles, and I think some admin needs to be warned about it. --Aaron 13:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Complex. Time for an RfC, I think. Guy 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please just give me a chance and watch to see if my actions have actually changed. No one has done that. Please take a step back all of you, breathe, and realize that you are all getting angry over my questions and comments and words to you, when I stopped the actual actions in question the first time Jossi mentioned it to me. I want to learn from you all, and be part of this community, just give me a chance please and don't get so angry at me so fast. Thank you. Smeelgova 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

No, we're not getting angry, we're just irritated that your reaction to being corrected was to attack the messenger. Guy 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Attack the messenger? All I want is more information, and answers to my questions. And yes, it seems like you all got very angry, very fast, and didn't give me a chance to respond. That's my opinion. Thanks for the response. Will you give me a chance to learn, be able to listen to others and be taught, and give me a chance to be part of the community in a more warm and welcoming fashion? Thank you. Smeelgova 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

If you were paying atention you'd realise that the whole point was that we want you to learn and move on. Jossi's original comment to whihc you took such exception really was no big deal. People spam talk pages all the time, usually with the best motives, and if they've not been told it's frowned on they can hardly be criticised for it. What we do is point out, politely but firmly, that we don't like that sort of thing, and mostly folks just accept it and carry on. That's an end of it, as far as I'm concerned, since I'm pretty sure you've got the message.

As to the other issues, they are more complex and you'll need, I think, some guidance from someone with more time to spare than I have right now. You might try the association of members' advocates. Guy 19:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi there! There is presently an arbitration case relating to Fresheneesz, whom you might remember from the UniModal discussions in April. I have seen some indication that you may have been the target of vexatious litigation, or possibly harassment, on his part. Speaking as his present target, I would appreciate it if you could comment on your experiences with him. Thanks. >Radiant< 15:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My experience with him is that no amount of patient explanation will ever persuade huim that he is wrong, or that your view is based on anything other than blind prejudice. Actually this is a little unfair - I have a stubborn streak a mile wide myself - but I found him to be possibly the single most frustrating editor I have ever come across. See Talk:Personal rapid transit and archives, Talk:UniModal and archives, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22 SkyTran/UniModal uncooperative admin etc. I suspect that the crusade against notability is the result of the removal of UniModal, a fictional implementation of a hypothetical transport mode, as a merge and redirect. Fresh warred over this and re-created the content as soon as he was able to. Compare Fresh's original with the current version. User:Stephen B Streater may be able to give you a less jaundiced view. Guy 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries?

Howdy - I saw your commentary over at the Talk:Ménage à trois page. May I ask which dictionaries you use, and what you think of them. I've been looking for a more modern dictionary than those I already have, but haven't been very impressed with the few I've had a chance to review at length. Thanks. --Badger151 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I find Merriam-Webster's Collegiate is very good for US usage, and for British usage I have always preferred the Oxford (Concise generally). Guy 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Badger151 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I ask here so as not to stir things up on the Talk page...

regarding MaT. My experience has been to use MaT as indicative of a threesome, but I'll admit that it's not a phrase that I use often. In your experience (as a speaker of English) would MaT describe something similar to a marraige between three people (and I'm including not just a sexual life (which may not be present at all in some marraiges) but also the shared resources and interdependency, emotional attachements, sense of unity, etc)? Do I have that right?--Badger151 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unaccredited med school issues

See the Talk:American Global University School of Medicine, for anon's issues. Arbusto 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"I absolutely agree that Jaskaramdeep is an editor of an incredibly trying kind"

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but antagonizing someone in this way, in a place he's likely never to find it, is violating WP Civil, no?. Perhaps if you had actually read the page and saw that I provided links to ALL of the statements Muero said were POV, you would change your mind. (also, not every editor agreed with Muero - he has a history of "exaggerating" the truth. Several said there needed to be a balance between his dry version and my overly congratulatory version). Jaskaramdeep 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You could always try being less... trying. If you want to write a fanblog, please try myspace. Guy 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean to be "trying"? Is it consistantly engaging yourself in altercations by promoting yourself to the status of "Wikicop"; showing those who you deem lesser than youself that they are, infact, lesser than yourself? Or is it minding your own business, sincerely attempting to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and getting upset when the self-proclaimed Wikicop deletes 3/4 of your article, citing POV, when you can (and have several times) provided links that show that the removed substance was not POV? Perhaps this time, before responding and accusing me of writing a fanblog, you should read the talk page to see my responses to his accusations of POV. Jaskaramdeep 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It means trying the patience of other editors. Especially by promoting an agenda. And actually some of us are Wikicops. Plus, if you notice, I suggested a dispute resolution process as an alternative to edit warring, raise here by someone else after I told him to stop edit warring. You were, however, unintentionally correct in your edit summary: there was no NPOV in your edit. Guy 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. What agenda am I promoting? A thorough Ales Hemsky page. What agenda is Muero, a Detroit Red Wings fan, promoting? Removing all positive information possible from the page of the player who scored two goals late in the third period of Game 6 which knocked the Wings out of the first round of the playoffs. I'm sorry, but if anyone has a hidden agenda, it is Muero. Jaskaramdeep 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"THIS IS HEMSKY'S WORLD; we just live here" Guy 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I already said, my agenda (if any), is a thorough Ales Hemsky page. You said that the material I re-added (which was subseqently removed) was not POV, so I don't see how my being a fan of this player (which your quote shows) is cause for any concern. However, you ignored my concern with Muero's ability to be unbiased in the article. Do you think it's a coincidence that he only started removal of "POV" from this page after the player scored two miraculous goals to break the heart of his team, and send Steve Yzerman into retirement on a sour note in what was supposed to be "Detroit's Year"? Jaskaramdeep 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As you also already said, your version was "overly congratulatory". That translates to a violation of one of our core polciies: WP:NPOV. Feel free to learn and move on. Guy 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, some other users referred to my initial version as overly congratulatory. Sometimes I wonder about the point of discussing issues with people who try and twist the truth to their advantage. If being "trying" is due to being too rational, then I guess I'm going to have to live with that. You still haven't addressed my concern with Muero Jaskaramdeep 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And other edits were, similarly, excessively congratulatory. Plus, as noted above, I was actually admonoshing someone else entirely. Off you go, now, and don't do it again. Guy 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, off I go indeed. Thank you, though. And not just for the entertaning dodging of my valid concern with Muero. It is through your completely irrelivant responses, and lack of any accuracy whatsoever regarding my comments that I have decided that some people on this site are just, for lack of a better term, dense. I have chosen to ignore such people in the future. Peace out Jaskaramdeep 21:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation: you refuse to acknowledge any fault whatsoever and will go on your way secure in the kowledge that it is everybody else who is wrong. In other words, a garden variety tendentious editor. Why ask, I wonder, if you're not going to listen to the answer? Guy 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You just keep digging youself into a deeper and deeper hole, man, This is exactly what I am referring to when I say that you lack any accuracy whatsoever concerning my comments. Twice I asked you to read the talk page. Twice. Perhaps if you did, you would have stumbled across this quote from me: "As I've already said, looking back, lots of the stuff I originally wrote was POV, and should have been removed. But lots wasn't, and still hasn't been restored, even though I've provided links". If this doesn't prove that you're unwilling to look at the facts, nothing will. Jaskaramdeep 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So you say. Me, I tend to the view that you may not be the person best qualified to judge the quality of your own work. Further discussion of this particular issue should be directed here. Guy 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the sound of a checkmate. Thanks for this. It feels good to know that when I don't get angry at the other party so that they can bring up WP Civil to end the discussion, the rational basis of my argument will win out. This was productive! Jaskaramdeep 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly open to that possibility, as son as you state this supposed rational basis I can make an informed judgemnt. Guy 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortuna saga

Fortuna Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently, you deleted the Fortuna Saga Misplaced Pages page. I belive it should be undeleted, and urge you to check out the deletion review about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles C. (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.

No deletion review exists. If you want to start one, do be sure to bring evidence of this being the principal subject of multiple non-trivial articles in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, also include those references which allow us to verify the neutrality of the article and establish its objective significance as rated by independent authorities. Note that blogs and edit-yourself sites are not acceptable sources. Guy 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Guy, the deletion review now exists at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 20#Fortuna Saga. As you already know, over at DRV we like to get comments from the deleting admin. GRBerry 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortuna Saga

I don't mean to be rude, but is there a reason why you deleted the Fortuna Saga page? People can search nearly anything on wikipedia, but now they'll never find the Fortuna Saga. Just wondering the logic behind that decision.

If you want to find Fortuna Saga then Google is your friend. I remain unconvinced that anyone will be loking for it here, mind, since there are zero cited sources in the article. The answer to your question is at DRV right now, see above. Guy 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In the deletion review, you'd mentioned your willingness to transfer the last content to a userspace so it can be taken out of Misplaced Pages. However, any mention of it in the deletion review itself has gone unnoticed. If there is some specific process required for this to happen, please let me know. Otherwise, however, I'd like for this to be done into my userspace, so this issue can be put to rest. Imaria Prime 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is ask a passing admin (e.g. me). User:Imaria Prime/Fortuna Saga, I'll delete it from there in a couple of days. Guy 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got the source saved, and I will make it available to the rest of the Fortuna Saga community. Thank you for your help; you can delete it whenever you like now. Imaria Prime 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ParadoxTom

Regarding the warning you issued this user: can I suggest more caution? I have not observed any disruption of the Jews for Jesus article. He was in a rather nast edit war, but the other party was as reposnsible as he was. Feel free to contact me for more information. DJ Clayworth 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The principal difference is that ParadoxTom (talk • e-mail • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) does not seem to be active anywhere else or doing anything other than disrupting - and has the block log to prove it. Guy 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz

Thank you. 06:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackoz (talk • contribs)

You are most welcome. Guy 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Help?

I recently created an article that was deleted then recreated as a terrible stub. Is it still possible to retrieve the original article that was deleted even though the page has been recreated? Could you also find out why the article was deleted. The article is called "The The Lighthorsemen . Could you retrieve it and give it to me to improve? Thanks Culverin ? 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyvio speedily deletable under CSD G12. The deletion log is here. MER-C 11:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that MERC. Sorry for the bad grammer. I fixed it though. Culverin ? 12:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I change my User name with your authorization?

I'm sorry. I've been way too immature on Misplaced Pages and I really wanna stop. So, with your authorization, can I create a new username to start all over with a clean slate? You can have administrators watch me and espionage everything I do. Please answer me as soon as you can. Thanks. Dragonball1986 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Air Training Corps - List of Squadrons

I agree really, but I was looking for a way to disuade additions. There is no easy list on the official web site. CS46 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The wing sites usually have a list, though - and frankly, finding the squadron is best done by going to the region or wing anyway, as it won't necessarily be obvious which is the right one. I do get seriously pissed off with people who delete "don't add foo" comments and then add foo, which is what's been going on here for a while. WP:VSCA applies. Guy 12:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Time Cube unjustified deletion

Hi JzG, I noticed that you attempted to suppress Time Cube via a deletion nomination. The time has now come for you to provide a straight answer: are you part of a Cubeless conspiracy, do you support 1-corner singularity religion or academia, and is it your aim to silence all mention of Time Cube and to brainwash humanity into a death-cursed stupor that will lead them to terrible explosive Armageddon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.5.186 (talk • contribs)

The single word "suppress" tells us everything we need to know here. Misplaced Pages is not the place to promulgate deranged theories. Guy 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review: web operating system

Guy, thanks for your comments on the deletion review of the web operating system article. I've written a response there that I hope you might have a look at. Thanks again. - JohnPritchard 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, will you consider changing your position on DR:WOS?. - JohnPritchard 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a user two weeks ago you threatened to block, is at it again. Arbusto 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute and the clashing of two robust editors to me. She's a valuable and respected editor, as is Arbusto. I would urge dispute resolution over any talk of blocking or such like. --kingboyk 12:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, Kingboyk. What I am "at again" is restoring a POV tag that was removed (three times, no less) by Arbustoo; he has expressed the idea that POV expires after a week, if there is no further discussion, and no attempt by the editor who inserted a campaign attack ad into a bio to neutralize the information. As far as I know, POV doesn't expire :-) Sandy (Talk) 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right there is no expiration date for tags. However, you are the only one who has POV issues and you added the tag. You have not made any proposal for changes nor have addressed the issue in the last week. Thus, no POV debate=no tag. Arbusto 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Arbustoo, I'm noticing a pattern of incorrect statements about my edits across a number of unrelated talk pages, while you seem reluctant to engage in conversation in the appropriate places, which in this case, is the article talk page, where the explanations for the POV tag have been detailed since the Farrell attack ad was added to the Shays' article. Please confine your commentary about my edits on articles to article talk pages; it may appear that you want to paint a certain picture of my edits across a wide number of talk pages, rather than engaging productively on the article talk page. Sandy (Talk) 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We're looking at a well-trodden path here. Document on Talk, in detail, what you would like to see change, discuss, and if you can't agree go to dispute resolution. Keep WP:BLP in mind at all times, and do not be tempted to give undue weight to campaign claims of the subject or his opponents. If all else fails, roll back to the version before the campaign and wait until after the election. We have no publication deadline. Guy 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sound advice, JzG — except for the Wikilink to deletion review as dispute resolution :-) Arbustoo and Francisx seem concerned about election deadlines; correction of POV issues and removal of undue weight paragraphs has not been possible so far. Until/unless they agree to work on the POV together, I can only continue to maintain the tag, and move on to other work that keeps me quite busy on Wiki. I'm sorry this issue continues to pop up on your talk page. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Always be open to the possibility that the other editors involved in the dispute are right. Guy 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I'm caught up on backlogged work, I'll have a look at that possibility on the Shays' article (there are pretty clearly issues of undue weight there, how to fix the rest is harder). In the meantime, I'm expending unnecessary effort defending myself against inaccurate claims Arbustoo is spreading across numerous talk pages, instead of focusing his efforts on resolving issues on the article talk pages. Thanks for the advice, Sandy (Talk) 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no deadline: Perhaps you should not POV tag an article when you cannot address the POV, and not before. Also perhaps you shouldn't remove the entire controversy section until you get consensus.Arbusto 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are confused on both counts, Arbustoo. It's not my obligation to address someone else's POV, and there was clear consensus on the Media Matters material. Can you please confine your comments to article talk pages in the future, so we don't have to keep abusing of JzG's talk page? Working things out directly with involved editors can be so much more effective then running to an admin whenver you have a difference. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 02:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Web operating system encore

Guy, thanks for your comments. I think I've finally realized the desired idea and have merged WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system. Thanks again. - JohnPritchard 03:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Guy 08:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact Finder

Just a heads up, Fact Finder (talk · contribs · logs) is claiming, thru {{unblock}}, that he should be unblocked, because he claims everything has been sorted out between you and him. Thought you'd like to have a look. See User talk:Fact Finder. Cheers, Daniel .Bryant 11:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cabals

I came across User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. It's superficially intended to seek out "Strivercruft", but lately it seems to have become rather more wide-ranging and overtly politicised in its goals, and becoming a source of Wikidrama into the bargain. Since the Userproject:Conservatives thingy was rightly squished, I'm wondering to myself if the above page would be a suitable subject for MfD. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance, 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid use for a subpage, tracking the growth of 9/11 conspiracy articles, if you feel it is overly personalised then you can edit it mercilessly. Guy 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Week?

Is this article about the same thing as the one discussed here? I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask to be sure. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a band (or hoax band). But this one is a WP:NFT failure to my reading... Guy 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WHO

Hi,

I'm curious about the guy at the WHO who is corrupting their reports. Do you have any links about the WHO's helmet policy? Thanks, Peregrine981 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not "corrupting" as such, but Philip Graitcer is a "liddite" - a true believer - and the reports he writes and the advice he gives are from the standpoint of accepting TR&T 1989 and the Thompsons' other work at face value. He will not respond to questions about the awkward reality that there is no known population anywhere in the world where cyclist head injury rates have improved as a result of changes in helmet use. The same problem caused the BMA volte-face last year. Guy 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

SEO Contests

SEO contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You're joking right? About the SEO Contest article and the alleged pagerank. Please tell me you were joking... Wit 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way? Guy 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I meant your mini-rant about pagerank. Misplaced Pages is not about pagerank any longer. We can get back to linking to pages we like to reference, instead of making people guess. I agree there's a lot of linkspam these days, but there's no need to exaggerate IMHO.

Funny thing is that I can't be arsed about the links because they are not pointing to my own sites. What I don't like is Misplaced Pages articles turning into incestuous little bits of semi-info, solely designed to keep people on the site. I mean come on: do we have to turn each and every single date into October 26th, 2006 FCOL.

Articles without external references are nigh-worthless, in my view. They suggest Misplaced Pages is the sole source of info while making it obvious that it is not. They make it look like the info is all made up. (LOL, I just realised those remarks are best replied to with "Ok, I'll just delete the article then, at your request". I've seen that happen before - recently. Still, I presume you're not like that, since I've seen your previous edits which were not as harsh as your earlier ones and which put you on my "mental serious WP editor list" a long time ago.)

I have to ask you though: Are you still having fun editing for Misplaced Pages? Wit 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanity check requested - Clint Curtis

Guy, William, if you guys get a chance, can you take a look at Clint Curtis and let me know what you think? I hope I'm not in an edit war, but it's getting close to an edit border conflict or something, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Diploma mills

Patriot Bible University, the place Hovind was "educated" via the USPS mail service with, is getting hit by a new user.

He is acting in good faith, but he does need a warning from someone else that removing references to it being a mill is not acceptable. He is removing that is is considered a diploma mill from the introduction. Also unrelated to a warning, he wants to explain it isn't on the FTC (that's right the Federal Trade Commission) list of diploma mills. How does the latter mean its not a mill? Arbusto 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

International School of Management (ISM) was recreated after being deleted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM). The new version claims its accredited, which isn't true. The creator admitted in the creation summary that it was deleted. Arbusto 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nations University is a spammy ad page created a new user with the same name today. Speedy per corp without notability? Arbusto 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. International School of Management (ISM) deleted as WP:CSD G11 and G4 and salted. Mdis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a SPA and has been warned to desist. Nations University was also a blatant advertisement from a SPA (hurrah for G11) and it, and the redirect at NationsUniversity, have been speedied. Guy 10:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nations University is actually NOT a diploma mill. It is an unaccredited, non-profit school for reasons listed in its article...namely that it offers all of its resources for no charge, and has a student body scattered about the globe, making campus size and library size impossible accreditation categories to fulfill. I am a relatively new editor to wikipedia, but the opening page said to make contributions on subjects on which you were knowledgable. Therefore, I have only edited a few pages. Naturally, I would not be editing a wide variety of pages during my first few days as an editor. If you feel an article's language is too slanted or not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it would be appreciated if you simply suggest that the author revise it, rather than speedy deleting it. It is natural that one would be slightly slanted towards subjects about which one cares enough to contribute an article. Nationsu 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Every unaccredited school has a really, really good reason why it, unlike its accredited competitiors, shold take a principled stand against accreditation. This holds across the entire gamut, from the PO Box diploma mill to the substantial campus Bible college. Guy 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility is thrown out the window on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute (2 nomination). Can an independent person step in and talk the user about this. Arbusto 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Misplaced Pages community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

JzG, you've expressed an interest in this article before -- can you take a look at Talk:Pacific Western University#This article is stuck as a stub -- I need your help and leave a note as to whether you think the proposed draft is acceptable as a replacement for the existing stub?

Thanks,

--A. B. 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is removing commercial links vandalism?

This is on my talk page. I received these two vandalism warnings today:

*First warning:

--Vandalism warming--

{{test2a-n}} -999 (Talk) 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*Second warning:

--Removing citations is vandalism--

Please stop removing citations from articles. It is vandalism--

{{test4}} -999

- Vandalism warnings replaced with template calls on Guy's page only. --kingboyk 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

*My actual behavior:

The "vandalism" of Winterstar Symposium consisted of (as recorded in the edit summary) -- (External link - removing 1 of 2 links to a Rosencomet commercial site as 2 links to exact same site address are unnecessarily commercial). This was one edit only. I have not edited that article since, so I do not know what the second warning refers to. The last time I edited that article was October 12, 2006.

An administrator Samir धर्म 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) removed them. But now they are back minutes later, now placed by User:Ekajati. This all has do do with the User:Rosencomet commercial links. Can I be blocked for removing a commerical link in an article? Thanks! Timmy12 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton got the point

Finally someone did. I can go home now.

A more pertinent issue to examine might be the probable linkspamming by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) of his website, often using the claim that they're "citations". --User:Calton 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My complements to him, enabled by User:Timmy12's valient (reckless?) attack. I can rest in my grave now. Mattisse (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Advice request

Hi, Calton (talk · contribs) suggested that I ask you for advice, and stated that he would take take the blame for me bothering you. ;-). There is currently some contention between, on the one hand Calton and myself, and on the other hand Hanuman Das (talk · contribs), Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and 999 (talk · contribs). The contention is over a large number of links inserted by the latter editors, and removed by the former. Calton and I may see things slightly differently, so the view I present is purely my own. The editors on the "insert" side, have been inserting links to www.rosencomet.com ostensibly as references to support assertions in a number of articles about various musicians as well as others. I think there are definite conflict of interest issues, but that aside, the links appear to me as link spam. (Calton, I believe is more concerned with the "internal" linkspam aspect of these edits). I have expressed my opinion that references need to be from reliable third party sources and not a promotional website. We briefly argued the issue , , , but this did not prevent a a new round of insertions and deletions.

If you have time, I would very much like to know your opinion on this matter. Please do not be afraid to tell me if you think I am mistaken, either about the policy, or about the best way to proceed. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)