User talk:JzG/Archive 22

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Just a heads up. Your recent block of User:Ben-w is being discussed at ANI. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad, i now see you started the thread. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a moment
Doing some recent changes patrolling yesterday (thank god for Firefox tabs), I came across Sports Club, and a long running edit war that both sides would violate a 20RR if there was such a thing. I have a request for page Protection in, but do you think the IP's could use a time out? SirFozzie 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA
Hi Guy, FYI: I agree with the protection of the AMA page which you recently did. However, I don't agree with Administrators making changes to the page without having a discussion. This is a double standard which shouldn't be tolerated, specially if you consider that making a page "historical" is only a guideline... and we can revive the group by advertising! I have left a message on the two users talk pages in question. --CyclePat 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pat. It's like this: AMA IS DEAD. It is staying dead.  It was a liability before it died, and the war over trying to reactivate it is even more pestilential than AMA was.  How many times do I have to tell you to drop it?  Guy (Help!) 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Guy, I noticed you removed my good faith attempt to have a discussion on the "Wikipedia proposal's" page. I was wondering what you consider "disruptive", as stated in your edit, with my request for comments and my proposal? Perhaps you could find a reference for me in the widely accepted guidelines Disruptive editing because I can't seem to find anything. Furthermore, I do take offense to the accusation and the comments which where directed towards my mannerism and the presentation of my comments and not the issues within the "verbios" and "long" comment I added to the proposal page. --CyclePat 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pat, how many times do you have to be told to drop if before you listen? Just give me the number, I'll organise the chorus. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Guy, thank you again for response. My understanding is that you are willing to try and show me that there is in fact much support to close down AMA, however I haven't seen this support. If you could please show me (organise) this chorus of support that would probably be sufficient for me "listen". A suggested venue of chorus' could be a Proper MfD, (which someone had actually started (a 3rd one) but it was closed right after) or how about a discussion at the community portal (archived) or an RfC or something that resembles a process (for GOD's sake we're talking about closing AMA which according to all the allegations was the WORST WIKI LAWYERING ASSOCIATION (according to the propaganda out there). Perhaps you have another venue? Surely if it was the worst lawyering association then WHY is it that there was no real lawyering for a proper procedures in closing it down. (except for when I decided to step up). I believe most AMA members worked via email. I also believe that there is just a handful of biased administrators that have decided the community doesn't want AMA anymore. Finally, how about having a discussion on the AMAs talk page where there is more than just 2 lines and comments from the other side saying and repeating "It's dead" (propaganda). Surely, as per WP:CON consensus rules we should be able to have an educated conversation and show that the AMA came to a consensus to close down (and wasn't forced by one person or a 3 - 8 biased administrators that simply didn't like being waved rules and contradicted by the advocates). If you do that I will be happy! You will also be vindicating the idea that AMA was closed down by a bunch of admin's that just "couldn't handle the truth!" Again, if you could do that, I would be very grateful. Thank you. --CyclePat 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can't see the support I suggest you open your eyes. Seriously.  Guy (Help!) 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Just a heads up. Your recent block of User:Ben-w is being discussed at ANI. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad, i now see you started the thread. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a moment
Doing some recent changes patrolling yesterday (thank god for Firefox tabs), I came across Sports Club, and a long running edit war that both sides would violate a 20RR if there was such a thing. I have a request for page Protection in, but do you think the IP's could use a time out? SirFozzie 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Will Johnson/Shawn Hornbeck
My article in an example of how to Copy Verbatim under the license. How is that inflammatory? The page does not fall under any speedy criteria. Therefore you have no cause to delete it. Wjhonson 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As if you weren't aware of the controversy, ongoing arbcom case, changes to two policies and other brouhaha in respect of trivial biographies. Nice try. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Seeing as you're already "part of the discussion" with those character articles (User:Matthew and Nintendo), would you please explain to User:Henchman 2000 and User:Bowsy that they're only using "consensus is required" to wikilawyer their points? I am happy to discuss with them, but they refuse, and state that the characters are important over and over (ignoring WP:FICT and WP:WAF). All they are doing is bringing back junky, unverifiable, cruft. Their constant bending of the rules to suite them is becoming really annoying. TTN 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that a no or are you just busy? If you don't plan on it, can you just reply here so I know to move on to another method? TTN 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Busy right now. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've given up on this, I thought that was clear, because, though WP:CON is reccomended it isn't essential and this isn't worth the trouble but I think Henchman really does need to lighten up and stop endlessly warring. Agreed? Bowsy (review me!) 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Adams
Those edits to the article about the IRA's most disgusting tactic may be helpful to you in the current discussion. One Night In Hackney 303  18:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31
Can you indicate why you think NWA Hawaii was written by the subject itself? - Mgm|(talk) 08:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OTRS email complaining about other editors changing "his" article. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium
I disagree with the deletion. The article was poorly sourced, but the name (without reference to any facts about the person behind the name) is a notable Usenet meme. Is WP:DRV the appropriate venue for comment? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree as well. The article certainly had problems, but Wikipedia has had an article on the subject for years, hundreds of good faith edits were in the history, multiple other articles link to it, and it was deleted unilatterally without proper discussion. For those reasons I am therefore restoring the article. I respectfully suggest that Articles for deletion would be a more proper place for action. Thank you. -- Infrogmation 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I first want to thank you for the long overdue deletion of this article, and for the wisdom of your decision to do so. I would also like to point out that editors are now unfortunately attempting to restore the article and the talk page (which is just as poor as the article itself). Thanks again, and I very much hope that the restoration of the article can be prevented. FNMF 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad you deleted the article, Guy. It's disturbing to think that Wikipedia could be adding to the distress of an already troubled individual. And he's not so notable that we absolutely need to keep the article at all costs. Having read some of the points made at Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop, and having seen Jimbo's recent addition to WP:NOT, I'm beginning to wonder about Donna Anthony, which was created and almost exclusively edited by me. There's certainly nothing negative or unsourced, but I'm wondering now if it is memorialising a living individual who only became notable because of a misfortune, and who, in any case, is not terribly, terribly notable. I'd appreciate if you'd take a look and give me your honest opinion as to whether it is intrusive. If an admin wanted to delete it on those grounds, I wouldn't make the slightest protest. ElinorD (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So there you have the two poles of opinion :-) And somewhere between lies, perhaps, a compromise.  Maybe the two of you can work together to document the phenomenon without actively taking the piss out of someone who, to all external appearances, is mentally ill?  I could not see an easy route form there to where we might want to be, so all reasonable suggestions gratefully received. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Knowing what you can and cannot disclose, was the complaint from the subject or something else entirely? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll hazard a guess that he just deleted it because it was a heap of poorly written, poorly referenced rubbish that reflected poorly on Wikipedia. Am I right, Guy? --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, he referenced an e-mail. Depending on what the context is, it has a significant impact on how this should be handled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of everything, actually. Email complaints can be from subjects, or they can be from people concerned that an article is an embarrassment (no, I dn't want to share more, for various reasons, thanks for understanding).  Yes, it was crap, but we do allow a certain amount of crap as long as it is not insensitive crap - sadly this was insensitive crap.  It was insensitive crap referenced a college newspaper which seems to have pulled the story from its servers (which may or may not be significant), and usenet posts; it identified by name and  date of birth a living individual who appears to be mocked largely because he is delusional.  I am not innocent of such crap myself, having created  before I knew better and before we had WP:BLP.  I am not averse to a debate, but of course we should not go to the extent of putting our dirty washing on a pedestal and then inviting the world to debate how dirty it is; that would not be inkeeping with either the leter or the spirit of policy.  I was happy to leave a stub with the history visible and the AfD, or to userfy for complete rewrite, or any one of a number of other creative solutions, as long as we keep the crap out of the immediate public eye while we do it.  Because, after all, it does us no harm to give a show of doing the decent thing.  Guy (Help!) 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I surely disagree with speedy deletion here, and I will surely support keeping the article should I conclude that the subject is notable (as I am likely to do)&mdash;I am, of course, someone who construes BLP quite narrowly, and I wouldn't think it at all to counsel deletion here. Notwithstanding all that, though, some of the concern at AfD revolves around the sources provided for the insensitive crap [which appellative, to be frank, I think itself to be insensitive crap :)], to-wit, whether The Dartmouth, which one assumes arguendo to be an other-than-reliable source (again, that's not an assumption I'd necessarily make), is indeed the principle source for the parts of the article to which you or others might object.  Although I recognize, then, that you might continue to support deletion or the excision of much material even if more reliably cited to a more prominent source, I wonder if you might care to address Uncle G's submissions (e.g., here) that you misread the article and misstate whence most of the text is sourced.  The issue isn't likely to sway the views of those of us (to use broad terms) on the BLP inclusionism side or those of you on the BLP deletionism side, but it might help clarify the relevant issues for others participating in order that a clear consensus might be borne out.  Cheers,  Joe 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gate-crashing here- I'm wondering if Donna Anthony, Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings should be merged into the article on Sir Roy Meadow, whose flawed testimony apparently sent no fewer than twenty-eight women to prison unjustly. It seems to me he is the notable, or remarkable, individual and all the others have is the sad case that they were unfortunate victims. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sally Clark will have widespread name recognition, nut even then a redirect may be the smart thing. There were some pretty detailed obituaries, though. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even in Clark's and Meadow's cases we don't have a biography so much as a summary of the legal proceedings with some background stuck on. I think that merging the legal material to, say, Meadow's lawâas documentation of the legal controversies surrounding itâand abandoning any pretense at creating real biographies of these individuals may be the neater approach. Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Roy Meadow article is probably a good merge target. The article should probably continue to bear his name, though I could be persuaded otherwise if a better name was suggested. --Tony Sidaway 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy. I have some concerns about the undeletion of Archimedes Plutonium. I realise the page is protected, and it may only be a temporary measure, but I would hate to think this is the first step to the restoration of the article. Just thought I would register my thoughts with you. Thanks again. FNMF 08:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you considered discussing it with the admin that did the restoration? I am quite sure Guy advocates that approach first... Viridae Talk 09:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that Viridae has now closed the DRV and reopened the AfD. The AfD was, of course, initially opened after your deletion. I confess I do not understand how an AfD opened after a deletion can be a more correct place to review a deletion than a Deletion Review. That this has occurred compounds my concern that this is an attempt to undo the deletion by any means. FNMF 10:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may notice firstly that I didn't re-open the afd. I only closed the DRV because it is ridiculous to 1. discuss the merits of a deletion that hasn't happened properly (Guy himself brought the article to afd, by which time a DRV had been opened (I believe)) 2. have two deletion debates running concurrently. The DRV was turning (as many people pointed out) into another afd, so after the history undeletion had occurred, it is sensible that the discussion continue in the one place - the one that focuses on content, not deletion policy so I closed the DRV, re-added the afd tag on the article page. Secondly, you will notice that I have actually !voted for the deletion of the article on the afd, and I am not about to change my mind on that. I would suggest you remember the wise words at WP:TINC. Viridae Talk 12:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Viridae, I apologise for wrongly stating you reopened the AfD. And I do understand the idea that having two debates going at the same time is pointless. If I am wrong to worry about the location of that debate, so much the better. I'm glad you voted to delete. I'm not sure which words you intended to remind me of at WP:TINC. FNMF 12:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems. The only words I wanted to remind you of were "There is no cabal" in response to "That this has occurred compounds my concern that this is an attempt to undo the deletion by any means.". Just how I took those words - dunno if they were intended that way. Viridae Talk 12:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Just thought I should notify you that it appears that AP has just post this comment on the AP talk page. To me, it is further evidence of why the entry should be deleted. For others, it may intensify their feeling that AP is an attention seeker (and that this somehow legitimates the entry). And I note also that user Arthur Rubin then immediately deleted the comment. To me, the attitude of some editors, that it is fine for AP to be the victim of this entry but that he has no right to object to it, is revealing. Thanks. FNMF 07:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I further note that the same editor who voted "strong keep," and who summarily deleted the remarks of the subject of the article from the talk page, also does not hesitate to leave this comment. No doubt the editor did not consider the comment a big deal, but, again, this reveals something about the attitude toward the subject in general. Thanks. FNMF 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the block Runewiki  777  18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul SchÃ¤fer
I wonder why you made this edit. It could easily be considered vandalism, so I'm reverting it until you give a good explanation (No, "ugh" isn't helpful). â CieloEstrellado 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living individual, and seriosu concerns about the tone and neutrality of the article. Feel free to rebuild from first-rate sources, and remember to attribute all commentary to authoritative sources, also steer clear of trying to persuade people that he is a bastard, because if we write the article properly they will probably be able to work that out for themselves. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a brief note about his arrest, trial and sentencing. It's referenced to the BBC story which carried it, and there's links to a story in the Guardian and Deutsche Welle. The sources are about as authoritative as can be. Nick mallory 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, nothing wrong there. The main problem was tone: it was polemical.  Stick to good sources, and work it up bit by bit, I suspect we'll be fine.  Let me know if you have trouble with POV-pushers. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I need your opinion
Guy, can you please offer your candid opinion about my recent efforts to discuss verifiability with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey at his talk page? I have been trying in good faith to communicate with him, and I was surprised to see him label my most recent post to his talk page as trolling. I'm not trying to get him in trouble here, just trying to get him to re-think his slamming the door on me. If he has concluded that I'm a troll, then I don't see how any further direct contact by me can be helpful until someone else manages to persuade him that I'm not. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I came here to inform you of that exact edit. I don't think Alanyst's edit can be reasonably viewed as trolling - Merkey seems to be using the fact that a few people have harassed him as an excuse to delete legitimate comments he disagrees with as "trolling". You appear to have taken him under your wing, so I'll let you talk to him. --Tango 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, keep calm. I'll go and have a look.  Guy (Help!) 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alanyst is a LDS author, and anytime I suggest an addition to Mountain Meadows Massacre or make any comments or edits that challenge the dominion of the Mormon Church, I am bombasted with accusations of lacking understanding, exessive trolling by this user, RFC's along with his like minded LDS authors, and subtle threats to reinsert unreliable materials like the Southern Cherokee Nation. The message is clear, "stay away from our LDS WP:OWN" articles.  His trolling is becoming boring and transparent motives are patently apparent to me.  I realize these people have some fascination with me because they think I am a "Nephite", but its getting old and fast.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see how that would be wearing. LDS folks can be painfully sincere, terribly insistent, and utterly unable to perceive their own bias.  Which may well not be the case here, I really have not looked, but perhaps the solution is to disengage personally and stick to specifics.  Here is my recipe for at least finding out how big the problem is.  On the article talk page, each make a short, factual statement of what you think the article should say - or at least your "side"'s perspective.  Then see if we can say both, in the form of "LDS say A, but XYZ say B" or vice versa.  If you can't quicly reach agreement (without edit warring in the article) call time, and file an article RfC or request mediation.  The sooner you do this the less likely it is that the dispute will escalate to blocks.  Please try to bury personal animosity, and to be open here I will say that I have serious problmes with the LDS myself so I am not going to get too involved here. Damn, I nearly said call the cavalry, sorry, Jeff, I have to learn not to use that one, it's seriously tactless. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy, I am still laughing from reading the "Cavalry" comment. Touche Brother!   No its ok.  I have enormous experiece dealing with LDS people.   It's a little easier for me because I have lived in the heart of their empire for 15 years.  They come around eventually, but not in any area where it involves compromising on their beliefs.  I think I know what to do here.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, Guy. Jeff is right that I'm LDS. All his other assumptions about me stated or implied above are categorically not correct. I think Jeff is letting my religion get in the way of his assuming my good faith intentions. That's unfortunate. I'll avoid turning this into a major dispute, but I'm concerned about this continuing tendency of Jeff's to leap to conclusions about people who honestly disagree with him, based on their affiliation with some group or another. Jeff needs to understand and accept that I have no ulterior motives here, that I am not trying to disrupt his good-faith contributions, and that I am sincerely open to perspectives that differ from my own or from cultural LDS perspectives (which themselves sometimes differ from my personal views). I value the NPOV policy and have done my fair share of reverting or editing other LDS editors' contributions that try to introduce LDS POV into WP articles. Doubtless I have unconscious biases, but I do my best to keep my personal views out of my contributions here. All I've been trying to do recently is to explain verifiability to Jeff. If the messenger is getting in the way of the message, then maybe someone else needs to be the messenger -- but it's a shame that such a thing should hinder my efforts to address small issues like Jeff's understanding of WP policy before they become big problems. alanyst /talk/ 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but be careful. No angry mastodons, that sort of thing, OK?  Remember that others can feel as got-at as you can.  Guy (Help!) 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right you are. My attempts at "gentle yet candid remonstrance" have probably come across as "haughty chiding".  Ah, the deficiencies of remote written communication!  Anyhow, thanks again for your time. alanyst /talk/ 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that Jeff understands all too well the deficiencies of text-only communication. Unless you have great mastery of the language, it generally lacks the nuances available in speech.  Alas, few have such mastery.  Treat each other with respect, and you should be OK even if you differ on everything.  Hopefully, anyway.  Guy (Help!) 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I have refrained from interacting with JVM for 24 hours to try and calm things down. Would you take a look at his contributions since then? I have an opinion of them but will not try to bias yours. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the brave decision
Thanks for blocking Nasz. It's a decision that should have been done months ago. I am afraid to think how much unsourced and biased stuff must be still in some of the articles he worked on. I gave up on him in January (mostly because real world duties pulled me of WP). Do you think a review of some of the articles is worth doing? -Friendly Neighbour 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Donald Neilosn deltion
The deletion of the page is very dubious as no debat on the topic was conducted and very little time between listing and deltion was given. I am now going to request a deletion review of the case.--Lucy-marie 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Warrant
Hi! At the Articles for deletion/Black Warrant I added their albums to the discussion as well. Feel free to revert if you should think this was inappropriate. By the way there was a Articles for deletion/Pakistani black metal (2nd nomination). Punkmorten 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Imallout1
Hi JzG. I'm afraid I must object to your blocking of this user and your comments on their recreation of ///seizethemoment.. I've previously deleted the article incorrectly under CSD G4 but at that time it would have come under A7 anyway. To make up for this error on my part I've offered advice to User:Imallout1 as to in what way the article doesn't meet the guidelines, in particular in not asserting in what way the band is notable to satisfy the criteria at WP:BAND. As a result of these discussions, the user added details of the band winning a competition to play at the Cornerstone '07 music festival in an attempt to satisfy the 9th criteria at WP:BAND, Has won or placed in a major music competition. Whilst I am sceptical about this claim of notability, this can be counted as such a claim and so I don't think it was appropriate for you to delete this under CSD A7.

I think a key aspect of this issue is that there has never been a full AfD discussion to analyse the notability, one AfD was closed following speedy deletion and its my view that this means the article cannot be classed as a reposting in terms of the CSD G4, Recreation of deleted material which requires the article has been deleted as a result of the AfD process which is not the case with this article.

I must make it clear JzG, that I do not disagree that this band is likely to not meet the notability criteria but feel the correct course of action would have been to take this to AfD to determine this once and for all. Regardless of Imallout1's motives in creating the article, we surely must consider the merits of the band before this. I don't feel the indefinite block is justified when the user has made attempts to address the concerns I have raised and seems to have understood that an AfD could determine an article is inappropriate based upon the current information available. I would suggest that the article be undeleted, immediately nominated for deletion via AfD, and the user unblocked to permit then to partake in a full discussion of the bands notability. Regards. Adambro 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a single-purpose account whose history goes back to November 2006 and consists pretty much exclusively of pushing this band. Many of the edits in respect of the band are blatantly promotional.  As soon as the WP:SALT was removed, the editor re-created the article again.  They have one released EP.  They took part in a competition for new bands, with minor success, but there are still no on-trivial independent sources, we have the usual couple of hundred Googles (most content tracks back to the band's MySpace).  Create once, no problem WP:CSD, band vanity, happens all the time.  Pursue a campaign of relentless re-creation over several months and at numerous different titles, with no substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia, and you get shown the door.  Wikipedia is not pitch-till-you-win, and it's not the place to word up your band. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?
For standing up to WP:WPBIO tyranny? Or just for writing the article?

Speaking of which, do you have a source of any of the funny stories about Deller dying in the arms of his French mistress (who later apparently turned up at the funeral, much to the consternation of Mrs Deller). I've always wanted to know if that rumour was true or not. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Writing it. I was listening to a programme on Deller on the radio the other day, I checked the article.  Amazing man, and vastly influential. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got several of his recordings - Purcell songs, Dowland, Britten - and I prize them. He sang beautifully. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as I can make out he more or less rediscovered Dowland, as a part of the mainstream repertoire. Wonderful songs.  I have some myself (but of course I am a baritone). Guy (Help!) 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and then people try to call my lovely summary a stub!  Moreschi Talk 19:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star (singer)
Do you think there's enough notability in this article to leave him alone, or should this go to AfD as a recreation of a multiply-AfD'd and DRV'd non-notable singer who still doesn't have a record deal? Corvus cornix 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a lot more than there has been recently, and a DRV challenge at this point should be able to keep it around. A better idea would be to incorporate some of those sources and move the article to Jeffree Star at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Balance on The Awareness Center Page
Blau's sourced statement praising TAC belongs in the article. But so do Shafran's and Dratch's sourced criticisms. To delete the criticisms while leaving the praise alone, on a page that, because of protection, you can edit, but I cannot, seems unfair. High-handed, even. David in DC 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See if you can come up with some sources who don't have a vendetta, eh? Guy (Help!) 06:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? The source is the same for all three quotes. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency/Washington Jewish Week article that is cited for Blau's "pro" quote in the current revision is the exact same source to cite for Dratch's and Shafran's "con" quotes.  It's all in the same news article.  That news article is balanced, and not a "puff piece".  Would that we could say the same about the WK article.
 * I'm not trying to be willfully dense. I'm genuinely mystified.  Why is the JTA/WJW article not a good, balanced source for all three quotes?  Neither JTA nor WJW has a vendetta against TAC. They practice mainstream journalism. And how can it possibly be a source with a vendetta as to Dratch and Shafran but a balanced, neutral, WK-compliant source as to Blau. David in DC 20:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only right that the page reflect a NPOV balance between proponents and critics. What JzG did was shoot Wikipedia in the foot. It's kind of funny that he tells off David by talking about "sources that don't have a vendetta." Shafran is the national spokesman of the Haredi Agudath Israel organization. Dratch founded an entire agency to combat abuse. They are not on a vendetta, but criticize Vicki Polin's ongoing vendetta against Rabbis. The sooner JzG realizes that he blew it, the better off Wikipedia will be. JzG, you made a major mistake. By deleting criticism from fair sources you played into the hands of "people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes" -- in this case, Vicki Polin herself, trying to bolster her credibility because high-profile critics have come forward to denounce her site as a 21st-Century witch hunt. SunAlsoRises 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since your only contributions to the project are to add criticism to that article, I will be discounting your opinion. Guy (Help!) 06:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Still disruptive
Guy, it's a shame that with massively POV edits such as the creation of Mormon men in black (check deletion log; it got speedily deleted) and Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life or his libel of a local rival (see ), JVM has shown that your leniency is to him merely license to ignore WP policy. What a way to repay your efforts to trust him. alanyst /talk/ 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Cherokee comment is perfectly reasonable, the LDS comments are not, I will talk to him about them. Although to be fair they are no more POV than the average LDS editor's contributions. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cherokee comment was a concern because JVM stated, as if it were established fact, that the person he was talking about had attempted witness tampering, extortion, and solicitation of murder. That's libel if it's not true. Yet the claim doesn't square with the fact that the person was never charged on such grounds, and the drug charges were eventually dismissed. I don't think murder-for-hire, extortion, or witness tampering would be treated so lightly by federal and state prosecutors; in one sentence JVM claims that the plot was uncovered during the trial and just a couple of diffs later he claims that he was involved in arranging a deal resulting in only a permanent injunction against selling peyote. Can you blame me if I find this farfetched? Aren't such falsehoods disruptive to WP?

Your comment that his edits related to LDS articles are "no more POV than the average LDS editor's contributions" is mind-boggling to me. Your opinion of LDS people must be very poor indeed if that's the case, and it makes me wonder if I'm not swimming upstream here in trying to raise concerns about JVM. Do you mistrust my motives because I'm LDS? Would you be as forgiving of JVM's behavior if he were creating articles on "Anglican teachings about extraterrestrial life" or "Orthodox Jew men in black"? I've approached you with my concerns because you're just ze guy who unblocked JVM, you know? But now it seems like you're inclined to assume bad faith on my part, on little more basis than my religion, and granting JVM the benefit of the doubt despite his lengthy history of bad behavior, threats, disruption, and fanciful claims. I'm absolutely confident your motives are unimpeachable, but do you think you've been consistent in your approach to our conflict? Maybe you think I'm out to troll JVM or something... is that it? I am not attacking JVM personally, just trying to combat his disruptive behavior. Meanwhile, he posts stuff like this. He immediately deleted it, but really, come on now. How much more goodwill does he deserve? alanyst /talk/ 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alan, if you have issues with me, stop being passive/agressive with others and confront me directly. As it stands, you appear to prowl around my contribs looking for any reason to nitpick and throw rocks.  You know where to find me.  Mr. Chapman is very busy on this project with real problems, and should not always have to play baby sitter and mediator with a group of men who know how to act like adults and may not be.  Be a man and work this stuff out with me yourself.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, you have stated your opinion that "you cannot reason with [LDS people]" and you have asserted that behind my civil demeanor I am waiting to stab you in the back. We cannot have a constructive dialogue on such terms of distrust. alanyst /talk/ 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe I mentioned you by name regarding my analysis of LDS culture as a whole, and if I did, I humbly apologize. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * jeff, it's probably OK for Alan to come here, we want to keept he heat down on your Talk page and I'm trying to encourage engagement on the issues not the personalities. Guy (Help!) 06:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"We know the LDS are kinda creepy..."
Could you please explain/clarify this statement? Is there some reason that this is more acceptable to state here at WP than it would be to substitute LDS with another religious group? Would you think that if someone said "We know the Catholics/Anglicans/Baptists/Jews are kinda creepy..." that this statement would meet WP:CIVIL? Who is the "We" you are speaking about? Are LDS unwelcome here at WP? -- 12.106.111.10 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this was an impartial observartion from someone without any agenda or preconceived views of LDS editors, and based on real world experience from some of the edits he must review. If you object to the chracterization, then perhaps LDS editors should stop posting POV edits and acting creepy.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you find something "creepy" with my rewrite of unrighteous dominion, or any of my other recent edits, or was that comment directed at others? -- 12.106.111.10 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't find mormons creepy as I live among them and all my friends are mormons. My views are well known and I know several members of the Presidency very well.  My uncle was the administrative assistance of the office of the presidency for over 40 years.  No, I don't think mormons are creepy, but a lot of them need to stop drinking the Kool aide all the time and rewriting history.  The teachings of mormonism are very similar to the ancient religion of the Ani-kutani, without the element of Christ that is.   Mormons should recognized their leaders were fallible human beings and report the history accurately, and embrace and focus on the beliefs, not all the controversy.  Perhaps I have been sent to Utah to help LDS People do this in a period of testing? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LDS are kinda creepy. So are scientologists, fundies and many other religious zealots. Probably including me. Guy (Help!) 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV closing note
Saw a couple of your DRV closures with a double sig, so thought I'd drop you a note about it. The drt tag automatically adds the closing admin's signature so signing separately isn't required. Cheers --Srikeit 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?
This was not trolling, and Doc asserting as such does not make it so. Enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In whihc case you need to apologise for Doc, because he found it insulting and considered it was trolling. Your repeated statements that anybody who disagrees with you is necessarily in the wrong - denying the possibility that any interpretation other than yours might be valid - is a core part of the problem identified at the arbitration.  I suggest you start being a bit less dogmatic.  Guy (Help!) 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When Doc bothers to apologise to me, I'll consider it. Hell, you should probably apologise to me for continuing the "anybody who disagrees with you is necessarily in the wrong" meme that's causing a good deal of the problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can defuse that criticism any time you like. I wil tell you the detailed steps if you need... what's the term? spoonfeeding. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the criticism can be diffused with a simple use of that Cluestick you're so fond of. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It could indeed. I was trying to avoid having to use it on you, though. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not me that's the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * so you keep saying. You don't seem to be persuading many people, though - and I suspect this is because your approach is not just that you are not the problem, but that you are not any part of the problem. And that is a problem. Guy 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't persuade anyone because of the myth. A myth you know full well is untrue, yet you keep pushing anyway.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying. That, too, is unpersuasive. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You user page
Per the request on the page, I did my best to clean up the page a bit, removing unnecessary ""s  and arranging the photos to flow better. I also converted from HTML to wiki formatting where it was possible, and updated the userboxes from boxbox to userbox templates. I also rearranged the grouping a little bit and added dividers. If you don't like it, feel free to change it back. Let me know on my talk page what you think. - SigmaEpsilon â Î£ Î 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaner! Thanks a lot. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Could you put the last version before deletion of Vivonet on my userspace somewhere? I got a guy who wants it back, and I wanna see what I can do. Whsitchy 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It said, in its entirety: Vivonet is a company that was established in 1999 and is based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Vivonet is an Application Service Provider (ASP) that processes transactions for customers in the hospitality and retail sectors across Canada and the United States. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like it fails WP:NOTE too. Whsitchy 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And probably WP:VSCA. Be kind, but be firm I think. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm getting "his" version of the page now. Whsitchy 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This guy is pretty wise, he's actually seeing if he could make it better so it won't be deleted if he does resubmit. Whsitchy 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Liza Shtromberg
Why was the Liza Shtromberg article deleted with no discussion and no chance for debate? She is a famous jewelry designer. The article was structured biographically. There was no link to an external website. It was modeled after the entry for Tarina Tarantino another Los Angeles jewelry designer as well as Harry Winston another famous designer. Her designs have appeared in magazines, in movies and TV, are worn by celebrities, have shown in Paris and New York and are sold round the world.

If Wikipedia allows for Tarina Tarantino - a Los Angeles jewelry designer then it follows that they must allow for all serious Los Angeles jewelry designers.


 * Needs sources and a less advertorial tone. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Gentlemen of the College
Thanks for the info on the deletion. I have to ask why the The Gentlemen don't merit their own page because of significance. The following groups are given their own articles and they are equal to or less well known than the Gentlemen. Some are also written quite poorly in comparison. They include:

Harvard Din and Tonics, Cayuga Waiters, MIT/Wellesley Toons, The Stairwells, Manic Optimists, The Octals, Penny Loafers, Princeton Nassoons, Providence College Special Guest, Radcliffe Pitches, Stanford Mendicants.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.


 * That comes under the heading of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The problem is that while most colleges have a plethora of musical and other groups, there is nothing actually encycloapedic about any of the individual groups themselves.  I believe a common solution is to have an article on groups withint the college, with short non-promotional descriptions of each.  I sing in a choir which was the first to have an Association fo British Choral Directors conducting scholarship bursary and had a two-page spread in the paper the other day, plus press in the German papers when we went to Dusseldorf; still not actually notable, just a generic choral society. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ever thought that you don't know what my opinions are?
Do please try to maintain separation of the people you are arguing with at the BDJ arbcom. You are arguing with me about something that I've never said I disagree with. Just because I overturned some deletions that I thought were improperly conducted does not mean that I think they should stay as they are in Wikipedia. If you look at the evidence page you'll see comments by me supporting the mergers. I fully understand the impact this place can have on people, but right now BLP does not cover what some people claim it does. That is what I've been saying, not that we should ignore BLP and have trivial articles on <15 min famers. violet/riga (t) 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No offence intended, I was assuming that since you appeared to be arguing with my interpretaiton in several places, you disputed it to some extent. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article for your inspection for Deletion
Guy,

Please have a look at this article: Search_engine_marketing.

It should be deleted or or merged with Search Engine Optimization

There are no cites and it is flagged for cleanup. It does not need to be cleaned up it needs to be deleted.

Your opinion please?

--Akc9000 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Search engine marketing
I know this article is pile of original research, and that it needs a thorough cleanup and references. It's on my list. However, search engine marketing is absolutely not the same thing as internet marketing so your redirect there was inappropriate. I've reverted to the previous version of the page. If you want to help clean up the article, that would be great. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Needs dealing with or nuking. It's a pile of crap. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sofixit. Rockstar ( T/C ) 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. You reverted. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert anything. The fact stands, however, that your redirect was wrong. Not that you'll ever admit it. Rockstar ( T/C ) 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saving us both a lot of time by realising that I am not going to argue about this. The door is over there â Guy (Help!) 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that way points to my boss' desk. Rockstar ( T/C ) 20:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Original research does not belong in Wikipedia. It is suppose to refernce secondary sources. There are no references.  SEM and SEO are basically interchangable as far as the common reader is concerned.  This needs to be removed. The SEO article should reference what SEM is and it is part of SEM.  People do SEO work because they want to market thier website.

Without reference this article needs to be sandboxed at least until it is referenced. It is written poorly and it is not noteworthy.

The revert, makes it overlap even more with SEO.

Propose Deletion. --Akc9000 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose, and please don't waste time with AfD. The subject is clearly notable.  I am the main contributor to search engine optimization .  SEM and SEO are not interchangeable, no more so than advertising and public relations. Jehochman  Talk 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Final warning
Sooner or later you need to get the hint. These diffs:, , , , , , , are trolling and violate WP:CANVASS. Any more of this and you may be blocked form editing. This is your third account that I know of, and every one of them has an escalating history of disruption. From this point you can go one of two ways: change the trend, or leave. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Guy,
 * Thank you for your input into this situation. Some quick clarifications on your above comments, which you left on User_talk:Neutralhomer. For the record, the user has had just two accounts. He did change the name of the account before, but he hasn't had multiple accounts. His previous account began as a vandalism-only account, and the user has worked to improve the content of several articles. I agree he has great difficulty getting along with user:Calton, but that is a mutual problem not entirely the fault of Neutralhomer. Finally, I'm not sure a block for canvassing is entirely appropriate, as it is just a guideline, to be taken with some common sense. The user was attempting to contact editors of TV station articles, and WP:CANVASS specifically states "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." Since it's clear he was attempting to contact users who would edit the article, I'm not even sure it should be considered canvassing, and I don't believe he meant for it to be a violation of this guideline. I also don't think the threat of a block over a guideline is entirely appropriate, either, although I am glad you did leave the user a warning about disruption. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocks are to prevent disruption. I await developments; if this disruptive user ceases his disruption, then no block will be necessary. Oink, flap, oink, flap. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware blocks are to prevent disruption. But block warnings should be based on actual policy, not poorly-defined guidelines like WP:CANVASS (which it's not even clear he violated anyway). I agree this user was acting disruptively last night, and hope, like you, that his behavior will improve. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Block warnings should be based on the fact that people are acting disruptively. Wikilawyering about the wording while ignoring the disruption is not going to help, I'm afraid.  He is being disruptive.  He can stop that.  I will be happy if he does.  Guy (Help!) 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because asking people to leave warnings based on actual policy is "Wikilawyering". How dare I leave a politely worded message for you, actually thanking you for your input? And I think it's clear from the user's talk page that I did not ignore the situation. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Message
I get lazy and dont' want to write something different over and over....so I use the ol' cut and paste method. Yes, it looks like I am spamming, but it is the same message and me just being lazy not wanting to write something different to each person.

Also, this is my second account and you should look into who pushed me off my first account before going around and accusing me of something. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, what the hell? I just looked at my watchlist and you reverted my posts.  This is my asking for opinions and letting WP:TVS members of something that is going on.  You are over-stepping your bounds just a little without knowing the full story.  I would ask you to re-revert those back. - NeutralHomer  T:C 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton is a loose cannon which you and other admins allow to go around Wikipedia half-cocked and do what he wants then you punish the people who stand up to him. ::Now, you can threaten to ban me, you have nothing to ban me on. Until User:Calton again tracked me down on the KXGN-TV page, there were no problems. This is a problem caused by him and only him. I will take no responsibility for it and I will not be threatened. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You were not pushed, you jumped, and you got to the brink by your own actions. Your response to date indicates that you have yet to accept any responsibility for your own problems.  Understand, I do not actually care if you fail to accept responsibility and try to change away from the disruptive behaviour that keeps bringing you to the administrators' attention.  I do not care, but I will be standing in line when it comes to time to ban you for it.  Guy (Help!) 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing I do is going to get this changed. You all are having a good ol' time threatening me and having a good laugh at my expensive.  Laugh it up and knock yourselves out. - <font color="#000099">NeutralHomer  T:C 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I will do just that. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel better? Good.  Took care of those pesky schedules for you.  Am having a little trouble with the network ones (hey, don't cite WP:NOT if you don't want the network ones gone too) as User:Calton keeps reverting me.  Would you mind reverting him and letting him know WP:NOT is not a two way street.  No schedules means no schedules. - <font color="#000099">NeutralHomer  T:C 10:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this: leave them all alone and stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "no"...since you all threatened me and ridiculed me over not wanting them changed and cited WP:NOT...not changing them, would put you in violation of the rules you are sworn to uphold. But, since they are already changed (knocked 'em out in one night) it is a moot point now. - <font color="#000099">NeutralHomer  T:C 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and I was not violating WP:POINT, I was bringing those pages back in line with Wikipedia policies, those being WP:NOT. - <font color="#000099">NeutralHomer T:C 19:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts
I've put some thoughts down at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP and I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. JoshuaZ 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ban
Hey Guy, I noticed this and was wondering where to find the history behind this ban, beyond this user's contributions. Thanks, Wikidan829 12:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a feature request in to add deleted history, but until then we can't see what deleted articles he contributed to. The account was Gregory Kohs, by his own admission. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is discussion on Wikimedia about having his company's site blacklisted. I didn't start the discussion but contributed to it, he is also part of it. He bringing up things about him being banned, etc. It does that it was community consensus to have him permanently banned, but I could not find what this meant. Thanks. Wikidan829 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

NWA Hawaii
You deleted this article and your comment on the deletion review was "my strong preference for waiting until an independent party decides to write this rather than a conflicted editor". The reviewing admin wrote "Redirect now in place; no prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation that avoids WP:COI issues. â Xoloz"

The version I recreated was essentially a stub which I think avoids WP:COI and NPOV issues--I have little knowledge and no personal opinions for or against the organization. If the stub article I created is non-notable, I think a merge would be a better approach or an AfD nomination allowing notability to be discussed. Your reasons for deleting would be appreciated, at least so I can better understand the AfD process. Antonrojo 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip Kraus
Remember Philip Kraus? Between me and another editor who came along, look what happened! :) - Ssilvers 13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! Vastly better!  Guy (Help!) 16:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke
Don't know if you've noticed this or not, but at the AFD debate for it, there's a lot of single-purpose accounts trying to rig the vote so it gets deleted. They've already been tagged in the debate: there'll probably be more as the debate goes on. I agree with your comment in the debate, and that it should be deleted per WP:DIGNITY, like Brian Peppers was. This is a clear case where WP:IAR would mean delete it in the interests of WP:DIGNITY. --<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b> <i style="color:blue;">talk</i> 18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It will take a very rouge admin to ignore rules here, but a thoughtful weighing of the arguments may indeed result in deletion. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes
After looking at the AN/I "report", do you think people will be content if I leave messages on the episode list talk pages and redirect unanswered ones after a week? That's normally how things like that can work. TTN 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Awareness Center
I agree that it is reasonable for the article to have a criticism section. Avi Shafran, the spokesperson for the Haredi organization Agudath Israel of America, has been included in criticism sections in e.g. Criticism of Conservative Judaism and Women of the Wall, so I don't think there's any serious dispute about the notability of his opinions, and the Jewish Telegraph Agency has been used as a source elsewhere. I don't see a real sourcing issue here. I would, however, definitely remove material that represents potential WP:BLP issues (e.g. opinions about the character of the organization's founder etc.) but other opinions, e.g. those claiming the organization should have higher standards for what it publishes, seem to me legitimate criticism so long as we limit what is included to things that can be legitimately characterized as opinion. I agree factual allegations may present other sourcing issues, but I'm pointing out that a legitimate criticism section can be had consisting solely of opinion by notable opinion pundits. In keeping with the requirement of encyclopedic tone, I believe quotes that state criticisms in a more measured way should be prefered to criticisms containing insults etc., so long as both are by notable individuals. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shirahadasha. JzG would you please re-edit the page, with her thoughtful comments in mind? I cannot.  I would if I could. David in DC 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I await an answer. Why is the Blau proTAC quote OK, but the Shafran and Dratch quotes not OK when they come from the exact same source? (A Jewish Telegraphic Agency article that appeared, among other places, in the Washington Jewish Week.)  It is a source that IS quoted on the page already.


 * All the Yanover and "Rachel is Vicki" stuff is a distraction. The edit that lopped out Shaffran and Dratch but retained Blau was wrong-headed.  The person with the power to fix his error should do so. David in DC 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been a campaign of harassment, which has spread onto Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of what relevance is this alleged "campaign of harrassment" to the question of why the Blau Pro-TAC quote is OK and the Dratch and Shaffran anti-TAC quotes arenot OK, when they come from the same article. Please, I beg of you, keep your eye on the ball. Shirahadasha has laid out perfectly plausible reasons why all three quotes belong and why a "Criticism" section should be a part of a good, NPOV WK article. Ignore all the distractions about things WK should, rightfully, shy away from. The inconsistency of the treatment in the quotes from the JTA/WJW article begs the question, why is the pro quote ok and the con quotes not ok.?David in DC 22:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia is not the place to pursue a campaign. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a campaign. It's an effort to have an encyclopedic article.  Cherry-picking a positive quote from a balanced article about the center and ignoring learned critique in the same article is genuinely weird. David in DC 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked user
Since you instituted a block for the user, you should be aware I unblocked. An explanation of why I did so may be found here. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cheers! Vassyana 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. My experience of users with combative usernames is that they always revert to type, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of close supervision here. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ExtraLife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ExtraLife

New link??: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ExtraLife_%282_nomination%29#.5B.5BExtraLife.5D.5D

I have submitted my rebuttal for your reasons against the existence of the ExtraLife article. I respectfully request that you defend your reasons for wanting to delete the ExtraLife article, because I believe that I have overturned each of your points of argument.

Thank you for your attention --Shaymus22 17:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you believe. I disagree.  See also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, it still has notability. It was undeleted for this reason. It seems to me that you're not giving this a very fair chance - every link was deleted, including those that proved ExtraLife's notability. I fail to see how those could possibly be called spam. --Shaymus22 18:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looked like spam to me, hence my removal drive, and this is a very high profile site so spammers have much to gain, SqueakBox 18:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well maybe if I restored it and you looked again...closer this time? Would that work out with you?  I understand your position, but please understand mine, and know that I'm fighting this hard because I believe that I am right about this, not because I have anything material to gain. --Shaymus22 18:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a reply is needed --Shaymus22 19:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, to the question why are you spamming wikipedia and then giving a hard time to those who remove your spam? You may believe its fine to spam wikipedia but it isnt, SqueakBox 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would never intentionally spam Wikipedia - this is all a big misunderstanding --Shaymus22 20:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Kach
Could you please explain why Tanya Kach is redirected to Kidnapping instead of just salted and protected? The redirect seems nonsensical, to me. I listed this at WP:AN, and was, quite properly, told I should have talked to you first. Corvus cornix 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

NWA Hawaii
An editor has asked for a deletion review of NWA Hawaii. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Antonrojo 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential Merkey issues looming
Hey. One of several seemingly less-than-respectful admins has taken it upon himself to wheel war over a Merkey-related account. Detail here. All the best, El_C 11:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the offered user history. In the week before his ban, Pfagerburg did only two edits, one on Community sanction noticeboard and the other on Jeff Merkey's talk page. Both were opinions about Merkey's behaviour. One may not agree with some of the opinions but I see there no personal attacks. I also do not see trolling as we define it because the edits were not deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia at least unless disagreeing with an admin's opinion means nowadays disrupting Wikipedia. I have to agree here with Jeff Merkey himself. He wrote recently that a WP editor should not live in constant fear of being indefinitely blocked (I do not have the diff but it is findable). I would add that it is especially true for editors whose only "crime" is a difference of opinion with the block wielding admin. I also sincerely hope that my voicing an opinion criticizing an admin (namely El_C) did not constitute a blockable offense of trolling or socketpuppetry, or especially "no comment" (whatever that means). --Friendly Neighbour 13:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa. El_C 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the list of things Wikipedia needs, single-purpose accounts set up to troll Merkey is off the bottom of the list. That one is a smelly sock and can stay blocked. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the AN thread, as I seem to be in a minority. Also, it appears our standrads for adminship have somewhat deteriorated, judging by many of the responses. El_C 14:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The account was obviously "Merkey related" but it neither followed Merkay around Wikipedia ("stalking") nor was it disruptive ("trolling"). The account was blocked for voicing criticism of Merkey edits. That's scary. Really. --Friendly Neighbour 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the account was blocked because it did nothing but knock Merkey, as an editor and as an article subject. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy, this account Friendly Neighbour, is another one of them. He's the reincarnation of a sockpuppet of the following accounts.  Here's some previous accounts to review.
 * User:Why_you_so_hawny%3F
 * User:Friendly_neighbour
 * User:Sue_me_Jeff
 * Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm nobody sockpupper. Neither a puppetier. The first account has nothing to do with me (although you accused me seeral times to be him in the time you were banned). The other two accounts were my disastrous first day of using a named account on WP (before that I dis a few edits withoiut an account - none of them Jeff related). I admitted this on a RfA (see this diff) and I state the very fact on my own User Page. No of the admins involved minded me using the third account so I use it up to this day. The first account was blocked because of its name which allowed me to create a new one. When I did do, an admin blocked the new one taking it for a sock of Hawny. The admin was desysopped soon afterwards.
 * By the way, should I redirect the dead User:Friendly_neighbour account to my User Page? It's existence can be misleading. I would like an admin's opinion on this so I can refer to it in case this redirect is questioned by anyone.
 * BTW, I did not comment on Jeff Merkey (not once!) since he was last time unblocked. Therefore, I do not think any accusation of trolling him can stick to me. --Friendly Neighbour 17:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we get a checkuser on these accounts? One of these accounts has a blatant statement the user is here to facilitate banning Wikipedia contributors through stalking and harassment and legal threats.  See User:Sue_me_Jeff and I quote from the user page.  Feel free to ban this account as soon as you ban Waya sahoni. This account has no other purpose. Sue me Jeff 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That account was blocked indefinitely. And I deserved it. I learned to behave. Do you claim that my present account stalks you or trolls you in any way? BTW, feel free to check me against any other accounts you like. --Friendly Neighbour 17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

HHO
You said this has been deleted numerous times, always for the same concern: lack of verifiable independent evidence


 * What exactly do we need verifiable independent evidence for? There's a whole list of verifiable, reliable source references. â€” Omegatron 18:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been completely ignored by any scientific journals, rather like aetherometry (see "what links here" for the deletion debates). As you will see in Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience I have nothing against including notable bollocks provided that we can show from unassailable sources without opening the door to weasels that it is indeed bollocks. HHO is snake oil, and as far as I can tell it's been immediately recognised as such and discounted without further investigation by anyone who would have the resources to prove it. Feel free to prove me wrong here. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A third party source is required, in accordance with WP:RS, to substantiate the claim that HHO is snake oil, otherwise such a claim falls under the category of WP:OR. Noah Seidman 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I say WP:IAR, WP:COI*, WP:DICK, WP:CABAL and not the least WP:BOLLOCKS. So I've won because I've used more WP:CAPITALIZEDGIBBERISH than you. Ben Gurion!
 * On a more serious notes: Yes, the tightened interpretation of WP:V, the disregard for experts and other factors, some of them good, some of them bad, conspire to forbid us to be Debunkers'R'Us. But that doesn't force us to run adverts for hoaxes.
 * --Pjacobi 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracenote
Would you have any objection to me unprotecting this page? There hasn't been much discussion regarding the protection, and the protection seems unnecessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Without response, I've disabled the page protection. Let me know if you think the article should be re-protected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
There are massive assumptions of bad faith here, including: "This appears to be POV pushing." in response to a statement that the article contained nothing but quotations; use of "your leaders" in addressing every other editor, with the implicit assumption that every other editor is a Mormon; "you and your fellow LDS editors"; "Please troll elsewhere." in response to a simple discussion of what the article title implies with respect to article scope; and "This sounds like POV pushing (yet again) to me, and desire to delete the article since it is embarassing to the LDS movement." in response to a quite proper request for "neutral, reliable secondary sources that have explored these topics" and a quite proper statement that "reliance only upon primary sources and a couple of critical and apologetic secondary sources will simply lead to a bunch of original research, as the synthesis of the sources presents a picture of Mormon teachings that has been developed nowhere else but Wikipedia.". This has been repeated on other talk pages, such as here. This appears not to be confined to one article, moreover. Here, for example, an ordinary edit by COGDEN involving no administrator tools whatsoever is mislabelled as an "LDS Church member violating WP:V, WP:COI, WP:RS and misusing admin tools". You are mentoring this editor, I believe. A strong word appears to be in order. Remind xem that labelling everyone else that one interacts with a "troll" or a "POV pusher" is actually to be those very things onesself. Uncle G 09:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life


 * Contents deleted.
 * Info Giver Guy 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, it's trolling. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good. I'm glad that you now know what you are dealing with.  Allowing edits in the Cherokee area would be fine, but when someone has a clear disdain for a specific religion, perhaps its not the best idea allowing him to continue working in that space. Info Giver Guy 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to ban all Mormons from editing those articles due to bias, but that's never going to happen, so in this case we just have to let the opposing parties work it out between themselves. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd ban us on the basis of belief, not behavior? Wow.  alanyst /talk/ 15:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder how far your logic goes. Would you ban all scientists from editing articles about science? Would you ban all doctors from editing articles about health? Would you ban all Native Americans from editing articles about their tribes? I hope you see where this logic leads... --Friendly Neighbour 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Science is not a belief system. The whole point of science is to be open to new ideas that challenge what you currently know and understand. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that. I am a scientist. But we have strong opposition on many WP articles by people who would be happy to say that science is too serious to leave it to scientists. It's the same story in the case of Mormons - remember that many Mormon related articles are about the community, not the belief system. Mormons can be biased but their detractors too. Using your logic, we would have to ban everyone on articles (s)he has strong opinions, including her/his field of expertise. Closing up Wikipedia would be a better solution (well, the end result would be the same, anyhow). --Friendly Neighbour 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Science "too serious" for scientists? Presumably these would be creationists?  Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Creationist are just the biggest and most organized group. But we have also climate skeptics, different kinds of oculists and every colour of pseudo-physicists you can imagine. --Friendly Neighbour 05:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. And per numerous arbitration cases, it is much better to leave editing of science articles to scientists and not those assorted POV-pushers.  The relevance of the creationist perspective in evolutionary biology is close to zero. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's correct. However, I still would advise against any policy change banning creationists (or Mormons) on sight. In the case of science articles, our rules work: we (the scientists) have the proper sources (peer-reviewed journal articles etc.). They have hand waving and original research. I'm not sure how it is in the case of Mormons but I hope that the editors who have verifiable sources are able to prevail n Wikipedia even on emotionally loaded subjects. --Friendly Neighbour 13:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy, Do you actually believe this? I certainly wouldn't agree with this belief of yours. Among numerous foundational beliefs, there's the idea that behavior that occurs repeatedly is to be taken more seriously than behavior that occurs only once, the idea that observations are to be given more credence than ideas, and then there's epistemology, logic, theory of inference, and much more. Perhaps the most dangerous dogmatist is the uneducated dogmatist who lacks awareness of his (or her) dogma. Better to be aware of the assumptions one makes in life, and the fact that they are assumptions, even if one thinks them the best available. Agree that although this user may be pushing civility boundaries, and expressing a desire to get rid of users with particular POVs probably isn't going to help things. Believe that everyone has biases, but don't want to push the point here. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I see your views with bias, but I'm not talking about that. It's the behavior that's most troubling, and its happened many times before. I'm sure my comments are still trolling to you, but it appears this individual cannot maintain any sort of civility when dealing with a different POV in this specific area. Given, he appears to be making good progress in his Cherokee articles. Working together with other editors and exhibiting a great deal of self control, but you said it yourself, "Cool it". How many more "Cool it" requests will it take? Info Giver Guy 16:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought a little about the consequences of Guy's idea [ I meant this Guy: Guy (Help!) ] (I sincerly hope he was joking but a little "what-if" is sometime useful). If we banned Mormons from editing Mormon related articles it would not solve any problem (if one exists which I doubt). The edit wars would simply move to WP:ANI, taking the form of witch-hunting of suspected Mormons. Can you imagine the pandemonium? And the bad press WP would obviously get? I think this thought experiment shows clearly why we should not change the present system of not banning editors because of their national, racial, professional or confessional affiliation. --Friendly Neighbour 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% with Guy's and your views on the subject regarding bias, but with one caveat: editors should be able to "play nice" with others.  My comments end here on the subject.  Thanks to everyone for not immediately putting me into the "trolling" category and actually listening to what I have to say. Info Giver Guy 16:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"I'd love to ban all Mormons from editing those articles due to bias...." Golly, that's scary. Archie Bunker was only funny because he was powerless. David in DC 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a little shocked by all of this. I see numerous comments verifying the obvious bias I was seeing.  I can understand Uncle G comments, but he seems to be saying "Yes there is bias but you are not allowed to point it out."  OK, then I won't.  COGDEN was inserting comments into the article which sources on the talk page refuted regarding the statements of Brigham Young AFTER THE PAGE HAD BEEN PROTECTED - his explanation was "I did not agree with protecting the page.  What does that mean?  Admins can break the rules that apply to editors?.  I do not think so.   I am going to back away from the LDS articles since my involvement has now raised the level of awareness of the community as to the problem -- a problem even Guy on his own talk page has stated exists (along with other commenters).  The problem appears to have elevated eyes into the situation, so in six months or so, I expect things will improve.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Jeff, what Uncle G is saying is that Wikipedia is not a campaign platform. Once again, the answer is to check your personal bias at the door and go back to reliable sources.  I do not edit articles on the LDS or Witnesses because I view them as heretics (which is also why I owuld like to ban them from editing their own articles, which I view as grossly over-sympathetic).  You should not be pursuing an agenda in this way.  Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. It appears we have similiar views.  I do not have an agenda with LDS people as has been claimed.  I do have an agenda for accurate materials in this project, and I am more than put back by the grossly POV editing I have seen.  I also have a tendency to battle the mongol hoards single handedly.  You bring up a good point on the matter.    I also believe that the level of awareness of this problem we both seem to see the same way has been elevated and perhaps it will start getting fixed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd like to ban all Mormons from editing Mormonism-related articles? Great idea! While we're at it, let's ban Christians from editing Christianity-related articles, ban Atheists from editing Atheism-related articles, ban Behaviorists from editing Behaviorism-related articles, ban Agnostics from editing Agnostic-related articles, ban Jews from editing Judaism-related articles, ban Humanists from editing Humanism-related articles, etc. That sounds like an excellent way to achieve balance. (/end sarcasm) The Jade Knight 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh no, their POV agrees with mine, that's fine. Actually I only want to ban zealots form editing articles on their topic of interest.  Scientologists and JWs are a much bigger problem than Mormons, IMO. You will notice that I don't get involved in these topics much, because I have the sense to know that my perspective is not neutral. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I am pretty much tapped out on this Merkey fellow. My position is that editing is a privilege and not a right. When you have an editor with as long a history as this chap making such ridiculous claims and parades them as facts, when just simply his simple opinion, why is he allowed to continue. If there is ever a vote to ban this editor for life, please let me know, I will be at the front of the line. Mentoring is one thing, but being a baby sitter is something entirely unneeded on Wikipedia. Any one that needs this much attention is too much.

Also, what is the warning on his page that you are the individual to talk to about him? Somehow he has achieved the position that anyone that corrects his edits will only achieve having his correction noted on his discussion page because you are his knight on a white horse to protect him from all those who think differently than him? This seems to be the proverbial bending over so far that one's head is firmly being planted where the sun is no longer shining. We are entering the realm of the absurd with this editor and it is not beneficial for the community.

As an aside, zealots of all persuasions lessen the quality of Wikipedia; Merkey is just such an individual. Why bother? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use image disputes
Per the template, you're asked to notify the uploader of the tag.

Re: the license, is the second bullet point ("on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation") to be treated as a direct follow-on from the first bullet point? I've been treating the second one as a standalone rationale. - Dudesleeper Â· Talk 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the result of a complaint to OTRS. Per WP:FUC, screenshots are to be used for critical commentary on the film itself.  I do not believe that fair use iages are allowed in infoboxes at all. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be too much effort for you to move the image into another part of the article? - Dudesleeper Â· Talk 18:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking question
If one were to wish to block someone, and to also block their IP address, and any possible socks from that address, which boxes should be checked? (And for that matter, is it possible - presuming a static IP of some sort, of course...) - jc37 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Block this user's last IP address, and any subsequent addresses he/she attempts to edit from does it. Socks will be caught by the autoblock. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notification of request to undelete "Image:Harvest-Because I Am.ogg" image.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Harvest-Because I Am.ogg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jamie L. 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Guy,


 * Does Wikipedia not keep archived images that have been nuked? I am fine with re-uploading the image if need be, but I think it would be easier to simply re-word the restored image's fair use justification.  I didn't save the fair use justification I used, and would appreciate seeing it again so as to have an easier time of restoring the image.  If it's not possible to restore the image, and the fair use justification I previously used is still available somewhere, could you possibly copy and paste it to my talk page so that I can access the text again?


 * Thanks for any further help/advice,


 * Jamie L. 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am really struggling to care, but I have undeleted it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for undeleting the image. I will now focus on trying to keep the article from being deleted.


 * Jamie L. 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Main Edits?
Hi Guy, its me. I just looked at the dynamic submission page where I asked for a deletion review and I noticed, you said something like I have no main edits? Not to sound stupid, but what are they? Articles that are stubs are not main edits? I am just wondering what main edits are.

Thanks! --Akc9000 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for opinion
Guy -- I'd appreciate if you could look at my nomination in Eugene Martin Ingram. I refrained from speedy deleting the article.. the debate ended up closed because of a lot of early participation, but I don't think any of the comments had been from people familiar with the recent BLP-related issues. Was I off-base here? What do you think? Mango juice talk 00:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, here's the link: Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram. Mango juice talk 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Land Sock Puppets?
This article that I afd. As an admin do you have the ability to see if these users are real? Could an admin tell me is these people are actual users or sock puppets?

Seth Finkelstein Jasonmurphy ? This article is a total waste and I cannot believe it is still in deletion review. These two users do not have user pages or talk pages but they are asking for a strong keep. I just don't get it. --Akc9000 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Finkelstein is not a sock. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So now this is in WP namespace
Policy shopping. - Crockspot 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (shrug). It still sucks. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to recheck the !votes in the previous AfD, but I'm pretty sure most of the keeps were based on it being in user space. I don't have a problem with it being in his user space. What would be the best course? Requested moves, or another AfD with the requested remedy of a move? - Crockspot 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Or maybe a drv? - Crockspot 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: the speedy deletion of "Category:Wikipedians who listen to Harvest".
Hello,

I see that you speedily deleted the category "Wikipedians who listen to Harvest." Your reasoning for this was "CSD C1: Underpopulatedcategory". In reading CSD C1 myself, I see that it states "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories . . ." I know that the category was not empty, simply underpopulated - as you stated in your reasoning. As such, I feel that the category should not have been speedily deleted. Wouldn't it belong in "Category:Underpopulated categories"?

I would appreciate your feedback,

Jamie L. 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Category with only one entry, a single-purpose account promoting a band = not worth having. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

Just a few more questions. Don't all categories start with one entry? Is there a Wikipedia guideline which states how much time an underpopulated category should be given to be expanded before it is deleted?

My category was not unique. There are many categories similar to it at Category:Wikipedians by musician. Should all of these be deleted as well?

Sincerely,

Jamie L. 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was only ever one entry. There was only ever one user with the userbox.  There was pretty much only one editor of the article.  There is pretty much only one editor linking the article to other articles.  Guy (Help!) 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Guy,

You're correct on all your points. If you have the time, I'd still appreciate answers to my questions (at least the second one - regarding a time limit for underpopulated categories).

If the category must be deleted now because of underpopulation, would it be acceptable to create it at a later date if it could be populated by other users as well? What would be the minimum number allowed?

Thank you for your time and efforts in refining Harvest related content,

Jamie L. 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about: wait until there is some evidence that someone other than you cares? Guy (Help!) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy,

I highly doubt this is Wikipedia policy. Maybe you could direct me to someone more familiar with category policy? If the category isn't allowable, this should be easy to explain. I'm really trying to get some answers here, and so far it's been pretty difficult. I don't have your experience with this site, and your help would be appreciated.

Like I've said, I'm not an expert on category policy. But I feel I may have grounds for a deletion review if you cannot prove that the category no longer belongs on Wikipedia. I might get shot down there, but I think I might get some better answers to my questions.

Again, I look forward to your response,

Jamie L. 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
I know you've been mentoring him, but he did some strange things today, and I'm actually questioning his mental stability or issues with the english language, as he cannot comply with simple requests for information from his citations, as other editors cannot find the information he says is in teh cites. Please review his edit history today, primarily at Talk:Reformed Egyptian and the resulting AfD. I'm not sure if it is he is not mentally capable or if there is a language barrier. He just doesn't understand what is written, and I'd really like to work with him, but we are talking past each other. I'd love to see someone with as much passion and pride in his heritage as he has to transfer that into making wikipedia even better within his areas of expertise, but he needs serious schooling in how to do it. How he is doing now is just not cutting it. -Visorstuff 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, he has asked for a mediator at Talk:Reformed Egyptian and refuses to talk to me. I'm taking off for the night, but your help would be appreciated. -Visorstuff 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An incidentally, my apologies if my comment above came across as accusing him of being mentally ill. That was not what was meant. I was questioning whether or not he understood what I was asking. Having asked the same question at least five times, I questioned that he was capable of understanding my question or if there was a language barrier. -Visorstuff 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the comments of this admin I am "mentally unstable" a feeding frenzy has ensued over at the SCOX message board. I can only hope PC Week doesn't write an article about it.  The basis of the issues today were predominantly LDS editors going into shock when I managed to decipher a Mormon document claimed to be "Reformed Egyptian" (was actually some Sequoyah Syllabary characters Joseph Smith apparently copied then claimed were the basis of the Book of Mormon).  Needless to say, the LDS editors flipped out and claimed I was "mentally deranged" for even suggesting it.  I AFD'd an article because these same editors will not allow anyone to edit it and the content was, for lack of a better description, unencyclopedic.  I withdrew the AFD after being threatened and told I am "mentally unstable."  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To both Jeff Merkey and JzG, I do think Visorstuff's comments were uncalled for (though he does not seem to have meant to do harm, it was just an unthinking thing to say) and it's understandable why Mr. Merkey would be upset by them. However I think his description of what happened on the "Reformed Egyptian" article is simply inaccurate.  I am not a Mormon (hell, I'm not even a theist!) and I had a problem with the edits he was making (though I did not participate in any of the revert warring) because they were original research.  This was clearly the main issue at hand, and the comments about stability were an unfortunate side effect of the discussion/debate over whether or not Jeff Merkey's "deciphering" of the Mormon document could be included given WP:OR.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. Let's get back to work. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, because an apology was not offered. It was not offered because I did not do or say anything worth apologizing for (recently at least, over the years though...).  It's certainly not my place to apologize for Visorstuff, even if I found his comments to be quite unfortunate.  I posted this because I felt you were misrepresenting what happened on the Reformed Egyptian article.  It was not only LDS folks who had a problem with your edits (I did too, so did John Foxe for that matter, who is not a Mormon), and the real problem was OR.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 06:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So you keep kicking people while they are down? Nice guy.  John Foxe manipulates edit summaries and shuffles talk page comments -- I consider this exeptionally dishonest behavior.  If you support such actions, this speaks for itself.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm sorry if you took my post as kicking you when you were down as that was not even remotely my intention. I think my previous comment made clear that I believe some of the comments made about you during the debate were uncalled for and that I understood and sympathized with the fact that you were upset. But I did not make any personal comments (about you or anyone else), thus I was not "apologizing" (just pointing out something I disagreed with) and thought it was odd of you to say I was. I don't know much about John Foxe and his edits, but I do know he is a non-Mormon editor who had issues with the material you were including in the article, and that's the only reason I brought him up. I hope this explains my point of view and apologies if my last comment was unclear. As you said, let's get back to work.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Matthew's Churches
You need to explain yourself... you're removing sourced content and giving no reason. --W.marsh 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the stuff was from published news articles that haven't been retracted by their publishers, as far as I know. If they really had a legal case the organization would go after the newspapers, not us, but as you've shown we're easier to scare. At any rate, none of this exempts you from the basic courtesy of just explaining this instead of reverting with no reason. --W.marsh 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of it was interepreted, other text was disputed by the subject. Three OTRS team members have looked at it, me, ZScout and Swatjester.  Feel free to expand on what we have now, but please don't revert, because some of the minor text changes are in response to specific points made by their lawyers. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Without seeing the letter from the lawyers I would just make the same edits again, I'm sure, as all of my edits were made in good faith and carefully. I really couldn't care less about this church it's just frustrating to have content axed like that with no serious effort to restore it. --W.marsh 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's accusing you of malice, the problem is that some of the outside sources are interpreting other outside sources in a contentious way. What we have now relies on the most reliable sources we could find - state governments and the better business bureau for example - and avoids the polemical sites which are out there.  It's pretty much certain that this is a scam, and they actually want the whole article removed, but with care there should be no need for that. I know it's frustrating, I had the same problem with some edits I made to Giovanni di Stefano.  I was able to see the ticket that time, but this tme out I can't even see the ticket any more because it's been moved to the legal queue, and I have no access to that.  Guy (Help!) 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These were mainstream newspapers though, some of the biggest in their region (Texas/the American Mid-South). Granted they were reporting in part on information from an apparently much-hated watchdog group, but nevertheless it seems a clear case where if there was any real legal issue here the lawyers would go after the newspapers, not Wikipedia. But newspapers have legal staffs, we apparently don't any more? I guess the volunteers are doing what they can but it's frustrating, this was encyclopedic content and we've been bullied into removing it. --W.marsh 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more that a story which appears once in one edition of a paper is regarded as ancient history by the following day, and an old story is rarely worth challenging, but when it is perpetuated through Wikipedia, any inaccuracy becomes a permanent rather than a transient problem. For example, one of the sources says that James Ewing's lawyer told Robert Tilton that he uses a computer program to target the poorest zip codes, but he says he does not, will not reveal his actual process (a trade secret), and his lawyer says that this is a misrepresentation of what was actually said, and that the paper has accepted it, but that it is perpetuated by those with an agenda against the company church. It is not as straightforward as it looks, I think. I have already told the lawyer that we are in the business of verifiability, not truth, and that if a publication says X then we report that the publication says X, but there is definite merit in working back up gradually from the best sources we can find, and being so neutral in our wording that not even the most rabid lawyer could accuse us of a hatchet job. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for your explanation... I really do appreciate it. The one point I do disagree on is that newspaper stories, especially investigative ones like these were, are very important, look no further than Watergate :-) At any rate, it's frustrating that we're in this situation though... I still feel like we've been bullied, but without legal counsel of our own, I guess there was no real alternative. --W.marsh 15:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, investigative newspaper stories can be very important. The thing that one notices about Watergate is that everybody else picked it up and ran with it; most of the stories in this case appear to have been one-offs.  We're looking for good, in-depth coverage and stories that spread and were built on by others.  Maybe you can help there.  of course we're not inclined to give anyone a free pass just because their lawyer sends a letter, especially when all the sources call them a scammer, but I think a degree of circumspection is called for on this one. Thanks for understanding :-) Guy (Help!) 15:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A spammer writes...
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Catherine_Saxton. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jororo 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tests
It seems that your powers of prediction are about to be tested. I hereby name this JzG's Mull of Kintyre Test Test. &#9786; Uncle G 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * edit
 * Ah well. It's true, there are very few sources.  A merge is probably better in that respect. To Mary Whitehouse perhaps? Guy (Help!) 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no such section in that article. I didn't seen any mention of that person when I tried to research the Mull of Kintyre test.  I'm suspecting that there is popular knowledge here that has simply not been recorded anywhere.  Uncle G 19:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure he was joking. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> ( T/C ) 20:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If only. Well, maybe it's not so bad at that.  British TV is still strongly influenced by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association as-was, and Mary Whitehouse's influence was so deep-rooted that a porn magazine was named after her.  Terrestrial roadcasters in the UK do not show actual sex and even in documentaries there is not one erection to be seen.  We've seen a man die on screen, tastefully done, but never to my knowledge an honest-to-god hard-on. Go figure. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the funniest part about all of this is that Whitehouse had a porn magazine named after her. Are you serious? That is incredible. I'm now impatiently awaiting the launch of a Tipper Gore-named porn mag. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> ( T/C ) 20:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is absolutely true. Mary Millington's magazine, IIRC. Also immortalised in Pink Floyd's Animals - "Hey you Whitehouse / ha ha, charade you are / you house proud town mouse / ha ha, charade you are" and so on. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Vote
Hi, I wanted to wait until the RfA was over to avoid inflaming things (and I always thought until the end that something would happen and I wouldn't make it), but I understand where you are coming from, and I will be VERY cautious on such things while I get used to having the mop, and I will take your comments very seriously as something to avoid. Even when you were opposing me, you were saying things that I can use in the future to be better. Thank you for hopefully making me a better admin. SirFozzie 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you prove the small cabal of dissenters wrong, and at least we have no doubts about you being a nice guy :-) Guy (Help!) 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (deadpan) It's a character flaw... I'm working on it. (/deadpan) *grins*. SirFozzie 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking for Guidance
User:Indiandish is adding personal information to articles that may be inappropriate, (height I don't have a problem with, (even if they are using the metric system for Americans like Halle Berry), but I tend to believe that cup size/bust size is not encyclopedic. He's been reverted numerous times on the Amanda Tapping article, and has apparently switched to IP addresses (see. I've gotten up to the 2nd level warning on the IP address. Would you consider this possibly an edit war, and I could issue a short block if they continue to add this information, or am I off the plot on this one? Thanks. SirFozzie 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Be careful about what you consider creepy. The Japanese blood type theory of personality was explained to you when you made the same comment about creepiness on Articles for deletion/Ai BandÅ, remember. The true problem here is verifiability. It's a fair bet that xe has no source for Tapping's vital statistics, because they are simply not public knowledge. As such, I recommend insisting upon sources with the full weight of the Biography of living persons policy. A block for repeatedly posting unverifiable biographical material is one thing, and unlikely to be controversial. But a block for being a "creepy obsessive" is quite another. The former can be objectively justified. The latter cannot. Uncle G 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A creepy obsessive we could well do without, is my view. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right-o then.. SirFozzie 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronen Segev
The Ronen Segev article has been deleted by Jimbo and protected by you with a reference to an OTRS ticket number. Since you probably know the details about the situation (or can at least look them up on OTRS), could you take a look at the page's What links here? I already deleted one forgotten redirect, but there are still two articles (Ten O'Clock Classics and List of Juilliard School people) with links to the deleted article. --cesarb 00:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have a look at it. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS deletion
Guy, please check your e-mail. I've sent a message regarding one of your OTRS deletions. If appropriate (i.e., if no sensitive personal information is involved, and so on), please post to the article's talk page so that the discussion may be available for view by others. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How a personal attack?
Seriously, the "evil helper monkeys" was a quote. Each of those statements could be cited. I agree absolutely that those of us who have been editing are not friends, not friendly, and not pleasant about this subject, but, indeed, the people who wrote the page are similarly not friends, not friendly, and not pleasant about the subject. So, one answer would have been not to have a page telling people how to use a non-WP service on Wikipedia. That was rejected, of course. So, if it's on Wikipedia, it's a damned Wikipedia page. If it's a Wikipedia page, it's open to editing to people who are not true believers. I won't war on it, but, given the way Friday was treated, the way all dissent has been treated, the way that this is a special "this thing of ours" on Wikipedia, it's crossing a line to say, "We demand that we get a page maintained at our version on Wikipedia." If it takes citing every single statement, that can be arranged, but I suspect that the authors of the page won't like it much. Geogre 14:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just put this back much of it had been there for ages and was by those editors who want to write the page wothoit my help. No probs easy mistake though. Giano 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The section was incredibly snide about James F, and read more like an ED page than a Wikipedia project space page. As I said, humour, fine, snide, no thanks. I'm all for being funny and irreverent. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I completely oppose going back and forth on the edits, but, if it's a wiki page, it's a wiki page, and that means edits by people who don't agree with the first authors. Some of the edits were mean.  It's better just to tell the truth and to resist all temptations to glorify oneself (JamesF and David, "I own all of it") or call them names ("largely inactive editors" would be the most accurate; why doesn't David use his time on Xenu 2 or something, instead of "how admins irc is the glory of the 21st century and the sole unindictable good").  Geogre 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's a wiki page. And I edited it to remove some snide and unhelpful remarks.  This is bad in what way? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

COI
I'm rather confused about the Rosalind Franklin COI thing. I wrote a note on AN/I, please respond and clear this up for me. KP Botany 16:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you and I haven't always seen eye to eye
...but you are an admin coach. User:Dgies has agreed to take me, but he wishes to have a co-coach. I was wondering if you would like to help me please. Work in progress at User:N/admincoaching. -N 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Simon W
Say, boss, someone stuck a Unreferenced tag on the Wessely article. Now I remember that you wrote much of that content, so I was wondering if you remembered which sources you used to compose this material. JFW | T@lk  10:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I got most of it from Medline searches, and I no longer have Medline. Bah! Guy (Help!) 12:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Email
That was from me in case you weren't sure, forgot to add a name. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  12:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Guy. I had went over it with ONiH and a couple other admins, but while I was 90% sure (till the fake titles thing), I didn't want my first block to be a bad/controversial one! :D. (I wonder if WP:BOLD applies to that... (yeah, I know it doesn't) SirFozzie 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I knew who it was from, I had no problem accepting the evidence, ONIH has flushed out enough Barber socks by now that I think he knows the smell of them. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a mental image I could have done without! One Night In Hackney  303  17:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

IM+
Hello Guy, Based on Wikipedia guidelines, could you explain why the deletion review was closed. I thought I had followed all the instructions. I appreciate your help and explanation in advance. Leanalove 19:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests from single purpose accounts are very often closed. Especially when the articles have been deleted several times, including reposts, and all previous versions are also by single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, all previous reposts were deleted because of the first article. The first article was really under IM+ title and I was not the author of it. It may have looked like SPAM. It was speedily deleted and the other editor did not try to contest the deletion or so it seemed. All further recreations of the article were deleted because a protection was placed for "IM+", and not because there was something wrong with the article. It is very sad, that it seems so hard to post something useful on wikipedia. Second, could you please explain "single purpose accounts"? Why no one else was given a chance to vote on the article. That's not fair. The article has reliable and verifiable third-party sources Leanalove 07:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolcat
I appreciate your boldness - but you need to have a discussion on the talk page before you redirect and protect pages, as you did in Lolcat. The article had adequate sources and I don't see how it can be considered as original research.  Ali  (t)(c) 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It contained much original research and nothing of merit beyond what is already in image macro. It is one of several examples of image macros, so now that ED is back online the full treatemnt of lolcat can stay there while we deal with the encyclopaedic subject of image macros. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * protecting like that is an abuse of your admin powers. Please unprotect.Geni 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles like that are an abuse of the project. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not covered by CSD you didn't prod and AFD is that way.Geni 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geni - please restore the article and put it through AFD if you believe it should not exist. Use of your admin powers to circumvent the AFD process and support your editorial decision is improper.  --ElKevbo 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now on WP:AN/I. SirFozzie 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Geni as well. That was perhaps the most heavily-sourced article on an internet meme I've ever seen, with multiple references for some sentences.  The phenomenon has been covered in multiple reliable sources.  If you feel strongly that it should be deleted or redirected, I recommend an AFD, or at the very least obtaining some sort of consensus on the talk page.  JavaTenor 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 Ƙ ɽ  ɨ  ɱ  ρ  ᶓ  ȶ  23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy that was well outside of your bounds as an admin. I have reverted the redirect and undid the protection. You know very well that the use of protection to maintain your position in an editing dispute is in violation of the protection policy. If you want the article gone, you are welcome as anyone else to take it to afd. Having admin powers does not give you the right to circumvent process to the detriment of the community. Viridae Talk 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Naturally. Perish the thought that we should redirect a festering heap of shit to an actual encyclopaedia article. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely rude and immature reaction. I don't know what makes you think it's appropriate and acceptable because it's not.  Shape and set a better example, admin.  --ElKevbo 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)compare and contrast,
 * And there was me thinking that putting ED articles into Wikipedia was immature. Shows what I know. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "As I said, humour, fine, snide, no thanks. I'm all for being funny and irreverent." Please compare and contrast with "Perish the thought that we should redirect a festering heap of shit to an actual encyclopaedia article" David in DC 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, compare and contrast. In the one instance individuals were named and their actions denigrated, in the lolcat case, a festering heap of shit masquerading as an encyclopaedia article was denigrated, and a vastly better and more encyclopaedic treatment of the same subject preferred.  As you rightly note, no comparison.  Guy (Help!) 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Hi - I just wanted to drop you a note that someone has brought up a deletion review which you closed as a problem. You might want to stop by and explain to them what's up. --Haemo 04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL and improving deleted articles
Hey Guy. Sorry to keep asking questions, but a user requested I place the last version of Heart of America Sports Attractions (which was prodded, it's an old time wrestling territory, fairly influential) on a sandbox page for him to provide RS to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. ONiH brought up the fact that all the info in there has to comply with the GFDL.. Would we undelete the article ONLY when he has provided the sources, etcetera? Is it a bad idea to place a last copy of an article in someone's sandbox, due to licensing reasons, even if it's to improve the article ? Stuff in the sandbox is a grey area here, and I don't want to misstep. Thanks, man. SirFozzie
 * Undelete, move to sandbox and delete the redirect, is how I would do it. Or just undelete as a disputed PROD and add the work in progress tag. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! SirFozzie 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused
I sent you mail. Cheers! Navou 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat at CSN
Cheers, Riana ⁂  03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Burden of Proof
Is it just me or has the burden of proof shifted to the defence of an article rather than the prosecution? –– Lid(Talk) 12:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP articles, yes. Otherwise the burden of proof is the same, and the burden of proof for individual content is with the editor seeking to include, as ever. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Urantia Readers-Intl
Hi JzG,

If the person from Urantia Readers Intl wishes to retract their uncivil comments and personal attacks on Talk:The_Urantia_Book, and have complained to the Foundation to have this done, that's fine I guess. As one of the people who was on the receiving end of the attacks, I don't have any complaint though.

The policy at WP:ATTACK and at WP:CIVIL is that removal of attacks and uncivil comments "should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly". I wouldn't have thought these are attacks that fall into the exceptional scenario and need to go, but I accept if that determination has been made.

My comment though was in no way uncivil or an attack and so doesn't meet any reason for removal. It was a most basic request that a justification for the external link be provided. A record should show that the link was in fact being placed by a representative of Urantia Readers Intl and so was removed for that reason. The person added the link off and on for over 9 months and, who knows, may try again in the future. The person may have complained to have their own ill-chosen behavior removed but there isn't a basis for censoring legitimite comments of others. I've tried to meet the differing goals for communication to other editors with a revision to the Talk:The_Urantia_Book page, please see how that looks. Thanks. Wazronk 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The present refactored version is fine, well done. The word censorship is like a red rag to me, though, it almost without exception indicates that the person making the comment is trying to push a POV or prove a point, so I advise you not to risk the appearance of accusing me of censorship. I react very badly to that kind of thing. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you find the revision acceptable. I have extra sensitivity in terms of that thread about valid comments being removed, I react badly to being "censored", and truthfully that's what it felt like to have my comments removed.  It was the second time -- this was the behavior of the person from Urantia Readers Intl before they even made any written response and got their indefinite block, they first deleted the comments, suppressing instead of engaging in dialogue to address concerns.  I'm happy a solution has been found. Wazronk 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing ill-tempered exchanges is not censorship, it is usually known as courtesy blanking. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville
Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Log update
Hi JzG, you may want to update the log record here. Thanks, Crum375 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The BDORT guys
I saw that you had blocked 1garden, but I noticed that the editor at whose behest he or she was acting is not blocked. Richardmalter was banned from editing that article or any other articles having to do with its subject matter by Arbcom. He was briefly blocked by SlimVirgin for allegedly trying to evade that ban, but as of now he continues to be free of any restrictions other than having standing orders not to interfere in BDORT-related articles. I'm just concerned that one (none too savvy) editor may have had to take a severe fall for another editor, who got away scot free. <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow  <font color="#285991">babble  14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy/ ColScott
Check out this page. He does this all the time, don't worry about it. <font color="OliveDrab">Satu <font color="OliveDrab">rday <font color="OliveDrab">Contribs 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Radius-peergynt.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Radius-peergynt.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
You were very helpful and it was appreciated. 86.147.226.186 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tierra on Ashley
Guy, look: there was no reason to delete the Tierra on Ashley page. Did you even bother reading it? I thoroughly read everything I estimated to pertain to writing articles and I did not see anything in any Wikipedia literature that said "people cannot write articles about property they own or about themselves." No one knows more about this building than me. Why can we not educate the community on the building? I am legitimately frustrated.

You know, I am sure you are skeptical. Fine, everyone is skeptical I am learning. But if you did anything more than take a cursory look into things you would see that my company has done educational outreach like: donate an exhibit to the local museum that shows a working model of the building and all its green features. Now, that sounds self-promoting does it not? Well, maybe to a cynical skeptic who sees nothing but bad when they look at our efforts. No, as I said there is no property for sale or rent in this building. What do we gain by writing the article? We just want to give back.


 * Yes, I read it. It was advertorial.  you made it clear that it was advertorial, and you were right.  Guy (Help!) 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I went out of my way to make it not advertorial. The property is PROPRIETARY.  You might not understand what that means, but it means there is no way for us to financially derive benefit because we will own and use all the property in there.  Now, GUY, do the NOT lazy thing (I'm sure it doesn't come naturally to you) and FIX the article rather than deleting it.  You sons of bitches sure don't make it easy to become a member of the wikipedia community, not like I even give a shit anymore.


 * What you said was that the Wikipedia page was being used by your organisation as part of its mission. Wikipedia is not part of your mission.  I am sure an uninvolved editor will come along and create an article, and I'm equally sure that you will be welcome to suggest content, but if you come crying to us because someone is reverting your conflict-of-interest edits and challenging you ownership of the article, then my reaction is always going to be: take your ball and play somewhere else. Sorry, I am a heartless bastard, everybody knows this. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott semi protect
JzG, I strongly disagree with your decision to reduce the protection of User_talk:ColScott. The entire reason it was protected in the first place was because ColScott was using it to launch vicious personal attacks and to soapbox. Reducing it to semi so that he can post completely misses the point, because he was the person it was protected against. This is a bad idea, and he will almost certainly make attacks from it again. If he has issues with his article, he can email the foundation, as is the established procedure anyways. The reduction in protection is a mistake, and I strongly urge you to restore it. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it was him, I am discussing things with him by email, and he was talking about getting a sockpuppet so he could communicate issues about the article, which I said to him would only make things worse. I am trying to de-escalate a problem.  Please trust me.  If he posts attacks again it can immediately be deleted and re-protected.  Guy (Help!) 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * JzG, if ColScott uses his page to attack and post personal details about editors again, you may as well have done it yourself. Your "immediately" isn't immediately - I saw the last round, for example - supposing ColScott wasn't behind the threats to H, it stands to reason that it was someone who likewise saw these posts.Proabivouac 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pro, I understand your concern, but I also understand where Guy is coming from in this issue. It's a matter of "This discussion is going to happen, either via email, or via a sockpuppet page", so let's try to minimize the impact if possible. SirFozzie 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet page wouldn't be on harassers' watchlists.Proabivouac 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or ours. If he attacks and you genuinely think it's the same as me doing it, then you can take it to the admin noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Userspace tinkering
Hi. Do not change the format of my personal space as you did here. I like my page the way it is thanks and it is in no violation of any official policies. The note is there for a reason to warn against spam; how you run your space is your business.. how I run mine is my business. - The Daddy 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the notice is there to say you don't accept the fair use violation warnings that are being posted there. Those are the only "bot spam" I can see in the history.  Thank you for playing troll-the-admin, you lose this round. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've warned you once, you are the one "trolling" my page by tinkering with it when you have no business to be; find something better to do. The notice is there for exactly the reason I stated, to warn against spamming of my talk page. Don't like it? tough luck, I'm not violating any policies by having an anti-spam message.

You however, openly promote violations in the heading of your talk, Wikipedia policy such as "WP:NPA", "WP:Civil" (with childish language like "fuck off" and wittering on about "dicks") and you persistant violations of "WP:Assume good faith" above where you attack me claiming I'm "trolling you". Wake up, learn the policy before attempting to lecture others with your "opinions". - The Daddy 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fuck off, dick. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)