User talk:Gwernol/Archive 14

Bush family conspiracy theory
Can you please tell me why you deleted the page "Bush family conspiracy theory" I happen to think there must be room at this site for different theories and that actual page had many which have been included in many books. It seems to me you are abusing your power by deleting pages like that one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedomspeechman (talk • contribs).

re:Bush family conspiracy theory
Gwernol thanks for your reply regarding Bush family conspiracy theory. Can I start out by informing you Sarcasm is neither useful or called for I have a legitimate question which I put it to you!

I have read the basic rules and I do not agree with the decision you made, and as per wikipedia guidelines I am putting it to you!

I also believe that there was an earlier attempt to delete the same topic (Bush family conspiracy theory) in which it was overwhelmingly decided to keep the above mentioned page. I might also point out that the earlier discussion and later determination (to keep) had far more participation than the one that has now been made.

I might point out to that simply stating anti-bush, pointless or the like are far from an intelligent review of the content and is not consistent with the rules of wikipedia. Did you ask the author/contributor whether or not they understood how a document should be formatted ? Did you offer to help ? Or did it simply not fit you political beliefs ? When I read it last, Friday 19 May 2006, 5:56:08 AM it seemed fine and was very informative as to the views of a certain amount of people as to what is, as was clearly stated a theory! From memory some of the items did contain information from books and from NBC’s meet the press.

Pythagoras once had a bold theory that the world wasn’t flat but in fact spherical shaped. Lucky you didn’t have the delete power then or history may not have noted it. May I ask if you attempted to edit the work as per guidelines ? There seems to be a growing problem with editors deleting items that they don’t agree with or imposing there own views with regard to things like abortion by stating that the an abortion is the death of a baby rather than the termination of an embryo people have different opinions I think and they could  quite easily both be include rather then deleted and then there veiw imposed on everyone. I think the same can be said with you deleting the above mentioned document it had be discussed already and the consensus was to keep, your much smaller group later getting together to delete seems to me, to be and abuse of power. One which I hope you will reverse. Wikipedia does not support censorship. And i wont use it if it does!

Can you please take a second look and get back to me thanks _free —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedomspeechman (talk • contribs).

Dwarf Fortress
Hi. I've speedy-undeleted the Dwarf Fortress article because I disagree with your analysis that the article doesn't assert the notability of its subject. Obviously, as the author of the most recent revision I may not be in the best position to judge, but I certainly don't think it's speedyable. Please take it to AfD if you disagree. Thanks! Nandesuka 14:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for the help !
Just quickly now I’m being sarcastic. I happen to believe that there is more weight in the first discussion which had the participation of some 60+plus points of view with a decision to kept then a later on that had all of 14 points of view and a decision to delete. Most people I think like myself who just use this site sporadically don’t know that we guard items I myself hadn’t seen either debated until I needed it for some work I’m doing.

As I’ve already made a copy of the comments of the 14 that were made none had Useful content Statements.

Using a different term for a word is not wrong, however acting so childish like your ending may well be I’ve decided to seek other avenues to have this situation rectified.

And just for the record I wanted to view the page for a piece I’m writing for the newspaper I work for. I think that writing about how you act and use you power may in fact be more interesting to our readers.

I dont really see much difference between your actions and that of a group of vandals Freedomspeechman 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a few minutes to assist a fellow admin - review request
Gwernol, Do you have a few minutes to review an incident for me? Thanks. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * email sent. Thanks. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) &mdash; with followup.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

More from Freedomspeechman
Gernol, FYI one definition of encyclopaedia. Is an comprehensive reference work: that is a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge

By your action it no longer is comprehensive. As I cant find the item I want as you have deleted it though a sly second vote. Would you rip a page out of a book ? A vandal would I think. Does it make much difference to me if you did it because 14 people said you could when 60+ people discussed it and concluded you shouldn’t. Yes it does that’s why thought you were wrong and asked you to have a second look.

I guess we are not going to agree here.

Thanks for your consent should I chose to write about this it is much appreciated.

Oh an on the vandalisim did you read it ? Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Sounds like your action given the history Freedomspeechman 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedomspeechman (talk • contribs).


 * I think you should go back to the original AfD and recount. You keep saying that it was "overwhelming keep" and "60+ people concluded it shouldn't". I just went back myself and recounted. There were 18 votes for keep, 25 for delete. Now, of course, an AfD isn't really a vote, it's an attempt to generate consensus, and while a clear consensus was not reached, it was leaning towards delete. At least have the intellectual honesty to concede that, instead of trying to misrepresent it as a keep conclusion.
 * Secondly, you seem to be implying that this subject would be included in a paper encyclopedia...so if you can point to a page in Colliers or Britannica or World Book (since, by your definition, they are "an comprehensive reference work: that is a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge") that includes an article about this subject, written in the manner that it was, then I, for one, would reconsider my support. However, I doubt you're likely to find it. Akradecki 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Clash
Hi Gwernol. I saw your revert of the fact tag there. The info sounds vaguely plausible and I should be able to check two comprehensive biographies some time in the next day or so for references. If there are any other unreferenced bits in that article I can try and pick those up too. Best, --Guinnog 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems your scepticism was well-founded. See what you think; I am tempted to reformat as a proper reference as well. --Guinnog 20:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
Was just doing a quick scan of Requests for arbitration to see if there was anything I should know about and was rather socked to see your name in the TOC! Glad to see it's nothing too serious though (as in you obviously haven't done anything wrong and it should get rejected straight off) :) Petros471 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a commercial site
Site I suggested was removed due to being "commercial" yet the site sells nothing and offers a free service? All the other links try to sell you something, and the site I suggested actually offers a free internet speed test and I thought some people here would find it useful. I guess not.

Another incorrigible vandalizer
I just reverted some vandalism of the Combustion article by another incorrigible vandalizer who needs to be permanently blocked. Take a look at his/her User talk:62.255.252.74 page. Thanks in advance, - mbeychok 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And Another
You temporarily blocked 216.73.64.6 a few weeks ago. Please consider a permanent block, as the account has apparently been unblocked to continue vandalizing. It's not really high-caliber or malicious vandalism, maybe it's just a young child, like a 7-year-old at home alone, so a permanent block might be useful for all concerned. KP Botany 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamestotal.com
Hello

May I ask why this page has been deleted and protected?

thx in advance.

Aretai 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Threats on User_talk:HawkerTyphoon
Thanks for blocking the user - if you hit the south coast (of England) anytime soon, I'll buy you a pint. Good man. HawkerTyphoon

Jellyfish
Hi Gwen, apologies for posting on your user page.

However, I must request you ban casper on the grounds that he broke the same rule as the anon user. Respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.220.232 (talk • contribs).

ABUSE OF POWER
Please refrain from using your admin status for egotistical reasons. It is considered vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.246.169.21 (talk • contribs).

Anon troll
Thank's for blocking the anon troll (again). They're getting on my nerves now! Fingers crossed they haven't got any more IP's up there sleeve. --Casper2k3 14:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted my thoughts on the (alleged) troll's user page.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:219.78.220.232#Blocked_for_WP:3RR_violation


 * PS. As you can see it's not just I who disagree with your rash behaviour. Netsnipe twice unblocked the user in question. Im glad someone here knows how to use his/her admin status appropriately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.73.32.176 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm afraid you have misread the block log. Netsnipe unblocked the IP then reblocked it after noticing the sockpuppetry you have been engaged in. Nice try, but please attempt to stick to the facts when making these kinds of accusations. Thanks, Gwernol 18:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Down's Syndrome
Gwernol, I was unware that the British Down's Syndrome was describing anything so I removed it. I meant no vandilism and I certainly regret it if it was taken as such. Thanks for the heads up - Wmgries

trisomy 21 isn't the "british name" for Down's Syndrome. I am an American and I have definetly heard the term in science classes before, its a scientific classfication. Sure British people may use the name exclusively instead of Down's Syndrome but the parentheses saying that British people use it isn't necessary to the goals of the article. I will now write this on discussion area in the actual article - I feel its unnecessary. I am sincerly sorry if you think that I have defaced the article, it was done in the hope of making a minor change to improve the article. Wikipedia is great! - Wmgries

Ok, thanks for clearing that up! - Wmgries

Sefton High School
why keep deleting sefton ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.19.99 (talk • contribs).

Need guidance regarding extremely biased edits of California Air Resources Board
Gwernol, I hope that you can advise or guide me as to what to do concerning what are, in my opinion, some highly biased diatribes edited into the California Air Resources Board (CARB) article. The two edits involved were made today (October 6, 2006) by User:67.160.235.141 at 14:40 and 16:30 respectively. You should read them in that time order to see what he has done. I realize that there are people who disagree with CARB for many different reasons, but these two edits use some very biased, sarcastic and derogatory comments. What is the best way of handling this? Is there anything that you can do or will do? I will watch for your response here on your talk page. Thanks, - mbeychok 00:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, those edits are clearly highly point of view commentary by the IP. Feel free to revert them and remind that maintaining a neutral point of view is required. If they persist they can be blocked, likely under WP:3RR or WP:POV. Good luck, Gwernol 12:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mcmuzza did it again.
I removed the Free Guitar Lessons link again and reminded him or her not to readd it again on their talk page. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After further checks, I have to conclude the account was created for the purposes of spam. The ONLY changes that user has made was to the same article.  If he or she tries it one more time, ban away.

Beths Grammar School
I've just seen a message on IP address 86.132.92.105 saying that you are threatening to block that user for vandalizing Beths Grammar School. I'm not sure whether that IP address has been mistakenly related to mine, but I am sure that I've never edited the afore-mentioned article. So please don't block me!Phase4 14:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you
I would like to say I appreciate your participation on the CS Lewis page. I would like to continue to work with you on such a section, sometimes it is difficult because I will work on material, than have it all erased.

Biblical1 12:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this will be a first for you but I feel like saying this... "I LOVE YOU!"


 * I am laughing because I have continually had all of that erased with no clarity at all, I felt like I was being pelted with oranges everytime I tried to mention any criticism.. all it takes is clarity! THANK YOU!

HELP!
Everytime I make my own userbox and try it out it messes up the page for some reason. --B&amp;W Anime Fan 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)'' Well, it used to.--B&amp;W Anime Fan 13:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Invisible Robot Fish
Should a checkuser be done for User:Invisible Robot Fish aka User:Danny Fenton to see if he made those impostor accounts. I'm not sure if that is vandalism or being disruptive. In the past 6 months he has been here he has made little to no real contribution to the encylopedia. He also removed you message about "Impostors" that he may have created calling it "useless". T REX speak 02:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg
Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg is both a bird image and Cacatuidae. The image has been in those categories for months and months. The image was never an orphan. -- Chuck Marean 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for your help in banning 194.72.81.81 earlier, he seems to have vandalised my page 6 times :P ST47 Talk 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
I hope you had a good break. --Guinnog 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Contest reversion
Changes you reverted to the Movement to Impeach George W. Bush page were not personal opinion or POV. Your actions violated NPOV. Reverting again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.59.105.229 (talk • contribs).

Penetrating Fluid
Hi Gwernol, what was wrong with the image, I took it myself and selected the public domain license option on the upload ? Penetration Fluid 13:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Penetrating Fluid
OK, I used the background to show that I genuinely chose the name because I had the can on my desk. Will change to a neutral background.

Rolex
Hey,

This guy 59.183.52.75 has been spamming a lot of the Rolex pages with his forum's links. I keep deleting them and he keeps putting them in. Thanks for deleting it this time. Can we ban this guy?

deedeedum

Admin help with a spammer?
Hi Gwernol, you've helped me out before with problematic users and I was hoping you could do so again. 209.183.208.197 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • [ block log ]) has been spamming wikipedia with links to globalgiving.com - a good cause I'm sure, but still inappropriate for wikipedia and most of the articles he/she is posting to. I'm pretty sure it's spam because, as well as the user not responding to attempts to discuss the matter (warnings on talk page, , and concentrating almost exclusively on adding material that promotes the site, this user is even customizing the links so the site can report on hits! (See the links being added in each contriubution).  I warned the user they would be blocked if they continued and they have edited 3 more articles since then, one of which was to put back the link removed by another editor.  the user has not responded to any of the concerns raised by editors here.  I will be going through the users contributions to remove the links. But I'm not an admin so can't actually stop him/her from continuing. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 19:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Siobhan Hansa 19:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
In that case, they are gone :) WhisperToMe 23:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)