User talk:JzG/Archive 136

New editors
Call me suspicious, but I don't think these are genuine editors.



--Calton | Talk 03:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some kid, I think. Maybe the welcoming team can help him out, I don't have the patience right now :-( Guy (Help!) 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Requests for Arrrrrbitration
You created this redirect on International Talk Like a Pirate Day, 2008. To save time at RfD, do you still want to keep it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot possibly stress how important, fundamental, useful and corny that redirect is. But if course, it's up to Guy. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I likes me that redirect, matey! Guy (Help!) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Arrrr, but it ain't as good as Gorillas consuming gerbils m'lad. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Helge Solum Larsen
Would you mind considering lifting the full protection from Helge Solum Larsen? It was certainly an appropriate use of protection, but I just spoke to someone on IRC who seemed to credibly represent the IPs making the disruptive edits. They are concerned with some issues that fall under the WP:BLP policy, and I do agree there are some issues there which would be more easily fixed without full protection. They've agreed to cease editing the article directly altogether if protection is lifted, and I believe that they'll follow through on that. I have the article watchlisted and will quickly grab an uninvolved administrator if it needs protection again. Thanks for considering this. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Linda and Terry Jamison
Wow; and I thought I was harsh! -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh! No, you were way too kind. There might have been a salvageable version, I will check back, but every version I saw was dross. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales
My edit may have been a bit over the top (and is being discussed here:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default - but I am redoing the ones - this is used multiple times though out the page - but only once with a template; and the page requests to avoid templates. If you really object - then the whole page should be standardized on one or the other. —  xaosflux  Talk 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Disregard - so many edits at once - looks like you left the nbsp alone. — xaosflux  Talk 01:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ecosexuality was deleted without consensus
I see from the deletion log that you deleted Ecosexuality as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I had written on the talk page that I opposed deletion. Since the notice for deletion must have gone up over the weekend, & since there was barely a chance for me to leave a comment before the deletion (& to my knowledge, the only comment), I doubt there was sufficient time to discuss the AFD. I know that we all want to continually improve Wikipedia, but I believe that it would have been much better to wait for consensus & improvement.

Yes there was a lot of promotional fluff, & ecosexuality can be a murky concept. But there was a number & a variety of sources. The article can be improved to encyclopedic standards. Plus, this article had been around for awhile. There should be a chance to improve it.

If you are unwilling to restore the article & wait for consensus (which, IMHO, would be best), then I ask a at a minimum that you restore the page to my User:Peaceray/sandbox space. I think that can deduce my track record from my contributions. I would not let it back into the wild until I felt that it could reasonably pass muster.

Peaceray (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The definition of G11 is that there is no consensus building process, that's what speedy deletion means. However, it was tagged by user:DGG and reviewed and deleted by me, between us we have twenty years' experience of editing and admin work, so this is not a capricious act. There was no section of the article, and none in the history I could see, that was free of the taint of promotion. WP:TNT applies. If you want an article, create a new one with sources and proper neutrality, avoiding the copious fawning mentions of the tiny handful of people who dominated the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * fwiw,Guy and I do not always agree. If we both do, it is very likely everyone else would also.  DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you please kindly restore the article under my sandbox as User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality. I want to be able at least to harvest whatever references that would apply as WP:RELIABLE, optimally refer to & adapt whatever portions that were least tainted by promotional fluff, & then add appropriate encyclopedic content. Again, look at my track record: . This will not be going back into the article space quickly. If so desired, I could even move it first into the Draft namespace for review after I have gotten it to an encyclopedic shape. I do know about the WP:TNT essay; I have been involved in article rescue & major rewrites before, & it will simply more expedient for me in this case to start with this former article's existing Wikimarkup. Peaceray (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ? Peaceray (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ecosexuality was deleted without consensus
I see from the deletion log that you deleted Ecosexuality as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I had written on the talk page that I opposed deletion. Since the notice for deletion must have gone up over the weekend, & since there was barely a chance for me to leave a comment before the deletion (& to my knowledge, the only comment), I doubt there was sufficient time to discuss the AFD. I know that we all want to continually improve Wikipedia, but I believe that it would have been much better to wait for consensus & improvement.

Yes there was a lot of promotional fluff, & ecosexuality can be a murky concept. But there was a number & a variety of sources. The article can be improved to encyclopedic standards. Plus, this article had been around for awhile. There should be a chance to improve it.

If you are unwilling to restore the article & wait for consensus (which, IMHO, would be best), then I ask a at a minimum that you restore the page to my User:Peaceray/sandbox space. I think that can deduce my track record from my contributions. I would not let it back into the wild until I felt that it could reasonably pass muster.

Peaceray (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The definition of G11 is that there is no consensus building process, that's what speedy deletion means. However, it was tagged by user:DGG and reviewed and deleted by me, between us we have twenty years' experience of editing and admin work, so this is not a capricious act. There was no section of the article, and none in the history I could see, that was free of the taint of promotion. WP:TNT applies. If you want an article, create a new one with sources and proper neutrality, avoiding the copious fawning mentions of the tiny handful of people who dominated the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * fwiw,Guy and I do not always agree. If we both do, it is very likely everyone else would also.  DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you please kindly restore the article under my sandbox as User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality. I want to be able at least to harvest whatever references that would apply as WP:RELIABLE, optimally refer to & adapt whatever portions that were least tainted by promotional fluff, & then add appropriate encyclopedic content. Again, look at my track record: . This will not be going back into the article space quickly. If so desired, I could even move it first into the Draft namespace for review after I have gotten it to an encyclopedic shape. I do know about the WP:TNT essay; I have been involved in article rescue & major rewrites before, & it will simply more expedient for me in this case to start with this former article's existing Wikimarkup. Peaceray (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ? Peaceray (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Log
Thanks for your recent AE action, per this diff. I notice that most people have been logging their AE blocks when enforcing bans, so I recommend making an entry for this one at WP:DSLOG/2016. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I got distracted by a phone call. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)