User talk:Guyonthesubway/Archive4

[hey mate i was wondering if you could help me find the list that was on the deleted page Dark House? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhuhuh8989 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

semi-protected
I just semi-protected your talkpage in the hopes that that vandal will get bored and wander off soon. If you would prefer that it not be, please just let me know or request at Requests for page protection. In any case, I hope to see you back to editing soon. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

COI and talk pages
Please re-read WP:COI. Your interpretation of it (as expressed in Talk:Ruggero Santilli) is flat out wrong. In fact the policy encourages people with COI to add their opinions on talk pages about how to improve articles. That's much better than having them edit articles directly; but, technically, COI doesn't even forbid that! Second, you may not remove people's comments from a talk page for having a COI. The only time you can remove comments is when the person is 1) vandalizing, 2) violating WP:BLP (and that's a tricky one), or 3) soapboxing about something not related to the article itself. In this case, the editor was clearly and directly pointing out things xe believes need to be changed in Ruggero Santilli. Now, those changes may be wrong, and the request certainly wasn't phrased ideally, but that does not allow you to remove them.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarkozy
Everyone knows that Sarkozy is a fringe president. I can't believe you would award him best president. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments
Deleting the comments of "new editors" at Talk:Ruggero Santilli actually makes things worse. Just give a quick, terse response like I did that says what they have to do to make the article better. Deleting the comments will only lead to them coming back and getting more upset about what they see as "censorship". There's no harm in just saying, "Hey, give us something to improve the article, then we'll listen." Qwyrxian (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, I think you are right. I've been working calmly and objectively on this profile for a while now, the rants from Kauffman didn't help anybody but deleting these posts "supporting Santilli" will just add fuel to the fire. Globalreach1 (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As discussed on the talk page. WP:NOTFORUM.  There's quite enough rants on there already,  and you seem to want more?  Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Globalreach1, but what I want is for Santilli supporters (and/or Santilli himself) to feel included in the process. I want us to try to educate them about how WP works, and about why we do or don't allow certain kinds of discussions. If the same user keeps posting forum-style messages over and over again, then, yes, we should delete them.  Or if there appears to be some sort of coordinated off-wiki effort to bombard the talk page, then we can preemptively shut it down every time it occurs. But based on linguistic style and the exact wording used, I see different users, all of whom are of course connected to Santilli and/or his companies or research groups, but whom are expressing what they see as improper treatment of him on Wikipedia.  I would much rather leave them a quick message that says, "Hey, thanks for coming, but you need to give us RS and tell us what needs to be done with the article, not just tell us what a great guy he is."  My feeling is that if OTRS complaints about the article start coming in, I want to be able to say that we tried to educate these people and get them involved in the process, not "We deleted all of their comments because of policy."  And this is because I believe that it is actually possible that some of them will produce useful information and/or sources that we can incorporate into the article, despite (or, perhaps, because of) their fandom.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just read your comments there, and I have to add one more thing: you need to read WP:COI. That guideline explicitly tells people with COI to discuss the issues on the talk page.  You seem to think that it says that people with COI shouldn't be involved with articles related to them at all, and that is flat out wrong. The guideline says, "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. When making a request, please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding."  Please do not imply to COI editors that they should just go away. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well lets see.. I made a perfectly reasonble removal of a rant from some SPA. Then I reminded the SPA that if they have a COI they have certain restrictions, as a quick google search determined they probably do have a COI.  Seems pretty reasonable to me....but your motivation seems to be to allow as much noise on the page as possible. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See, even I have limits. I believe we've done our best. Again, if any of "them" want to give us reliable sources, suggest legitimate changes, etc., they may do so (so we can't just revert on sight). But they've had their chances, so even my patience has worn out. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture on Santilli
The editor isn't banned--the editor is only indefinitely blocked. That means that the editor may be allowed to edit again if xe either shows that xe knows what xe did is wrong and can convince an admin(s) that xe won't do it again; or, if the editor can successfully shows that the original cause for the block was wrong (which is what the user is attempting to do right now), then they may also be unblocked for that reason.

When an editor is banned, in that case only may we remove their contributions without reason--but only for edits they make after being banned (i.e., through sockpuppetry). We do not go through their contribution list and revert everything they've ever done. The only exceptions to this are when the editor was blocked or banned for copyright violations--in some of those cases, with community consensus, we may rule that the risk of copyvio is so high that we'll, when possible, blank their contributions pending investigation.

However, Globalreach1 was not blocked for anything remotely resembling copyvios. There is no reason to believe that picture is a copyright violation. If you have found that picture somewhere online, or have other evidence it is a copyright violation, then the correct approach is to request that the file be deleted. If you have such evidence and don't know how to make that request, you're welcome to describe it here or on the article and I can proceed with the deletion request for you. You may not simply remove it just because you automatically assume that everything the editor ever did on Wikipedia was wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of "has been blocked indefinitely" says "trustworthy about copyright" to you? I'm glad you have the time and energy to spend on defending his work, rather than cleaning up the mess.   Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't notice this before. The point is, these are the Wikipedia rules--we don't just go through and remove/erase everything an editor has because they are blocked, except in the very rare case where someone was blocked specifically because of massive copyright violations (even then, it takes a community consensus to do it).  If you have evidence it's a copyright violation, present that evidence on the File's page and ask for it to be deleted.  If not, then it stays.  The only place I see it online (Google image search) is on WP and a mirror of WP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI Case
Going forward, be careful with your edits. Your edit to the Kaufman1111 sock case basically broke the whole bot system we have in place. If you have others to add, make sure you add them to Kaufman1111 - be aware of the capitals! —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * i'd check the bot system then. the only thing I did last go 'round was to use the template to report another sock.   Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was this edit. It's because you put the username as 'kaufman1111', where it's actually 'Kaufman1111'. The caps matter here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The 15th edit would have been only through the template. so if thats break the bots you might want to have a look at that.  kaufman1111 and Kaufman1111 both seem to work..Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please email me.
Could you email me ASAP please? Either via the "email this user" link on my talk page or at steve@sjbaker.org - I need to pass on some information to you that can't be done on a public forum. SteveBaker (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. u can email me at my users name at yahoo, also dropped u a lineGuyonthesubway (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovilus
This product has been shown in use on television by name in over 4 episodes of 3 different shows. It is mentioned in 3 published books by name. What more notability does it require. Regardless of your beliefs it does stand on its own as a notable product. «Golgofrinchian»  ∞talk∞  14:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! But if you tone down the ranting about fringe and people's beliefs and hobbies you'll do better getting yourself heard. Your posts are about 2/3 noise that will make people dismiss you alltogether.  Figure out the actual issue pepole have with your work and work within the established rules here and you'll get people to hear you.   My beliefs have nothing to do with this.  I beleive that the device exists, and that it may be somewhat notable.  I don't know if it warrents its own article, and I'm not sure that the TV mentions are sufficient to establish notability on wikipieda.  I'm going to sit out those decisions.  Keep in mind I'm actually trying to help you here.   Have you read [Notability]?  Also, ranting about snake pits is unlikely to endear you to anyone.  There are a million people pushing a million products on Wikipedia, its cheap advertising.  While I think you're probably sincere, many people aren't.  I've seen lots of companies promote themselves here and people are very sensitive to that.  Once people are convinced you're pushing an unsubstantiated point of view you're not going to get anywhere.Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Help me
Guyonthesubway do you know anythings else i should change on my paper. if you also know anything else on the subject don't hesitate to edit it.
 * But for people who want to destroy it i always know who edits it and what they did so don't try anything stupid please i would hate it.
 * thank you for taking the to read the paper Guyonthesubway and anything that you want to contribute. i appreciate it. EthanKid17 19:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanKid17 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, but I'm not going to edit your paper. I can give you tips, but that's it. Its your work.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes i know that's what i want are tips nothing special EthanKid17 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanKid17 (talk • contribs)

Notification of Your user page on Wikiquette alerts
Dear Guyonthesubway, I have notified Your user page on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, because it seems to me that the template You have included into Your user page with the comment running "This user loves Drugs, Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Immigration" should not be tolerated in the Wikipedia. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC) ]