User talk:JzG/Archive 33

Not around much
Should have added this earlier:

Not sure what value of soon, perhaps not until after a business trip to Pune in September. In April I had one SAN and one blade chassis full of VMware servers. Now I have four SANs, part of a fifth, two more in planning, one in proposal and over 650 virtual machines on 31 servers in the UK and Switzerland. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey don't go away, you're missing all the fun. Take a quick look around... mind you, you can probably rely on the C68-FM-SV case to be no further on by the time you get back William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking about it
JzG, I am self-limited to one revert per day on that article. Yet you have no problem banning editors who are discussing and contributing and reverting against consensus. Shame. Bstone (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And because you're open to it:. Bstone (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Those were not new users any more than I am a monkey's uncle.  It was the same old banned user and his same old sockpuppetry.  The main reason that article exists is because they want to advertise their college and obscure the fact that it is, according to the sources, "worthless". Guy (Help!) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * JzG, you may want to take a break from the St Chris article. You've lost your objectivity. Bstone (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He did take a break, in fact a fairly long one. During which a handful of sock/meatpuppets of the old problem user showed up to skew the article again, while no one else was paying attention. Of the many problems surrounding that article, Guy is hardly the most pressing or sizable. MastCell Talk 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Good to see you back
Yay. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but slightly premature; I'm just passing through between concerts as it were. Off to Switzerland again next week, which will be good, but still looking heavily overcommitted until the September trip. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AfterElton.com
Guy, you may want to take a re-look at AfterElton.com. It's a professionally-written and edited entertainment/media news site, owned by Logo, an LGBT-targeted cable TV channel, which itself is owned by MTV Networks. While I'm sure it's no New York Times, I wouldn't consider it any less reliable than People Magazine, or other similar publications focusing on entertainment, culture and personality news. FCYTravis (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say we should not be using People magazine for sourcing BLPs either, sir. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

tvrage.com\/shows\/id-14792
Hi. The TVrage domain is quite rightly blacklisted, not because the information is unreliable but because of previous attempts to spam links to the site. Back in December, the particular page above was added to the whitelist after due process so that it could be used as a reference in the article The General (TV series). It's a reliable, secondary source, and the only source I could find for referencing that particular article.

In April, you removed the reference from the article stating that the site was blacklisted because it's unreliable. (That's wrong; the domain was blacklisted because of spamming, not reliability concerns). You also removed the particular page from the whitelist stating that it was redundant (again wrong, as it was in use at The General (TV series) until you removed the reference). Please could you explain, or (better) undo, your actions? Waggers (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, if you wish to remove a site from the whitelist, please don't do it yourself - make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Being an admin doesn't mean you can skip due process. Waggers (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You misrepresent wat my edit summary said, which was "rm. unreliable source, blacklisted site" - note the primary concern. My view of process begins with "F" and ends with "uck process", but in the end if the only reference you can find is TV Rage then you have no references, per WP:RS. Try finding a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Urban exploration
"I gather that your complaint about the article is that it doesn't say enough about illegality and costs, and you've got a point. You should write up a prospective paragraph on the subject and post it on the talk page, if you have not already done so. I think it belongs in the "safety" section, because most of the folks doing this are probably kids who think they're immortal."

The only issue with this is, Papa has been equating urban exploration solely with its illicit nature and with the cost of providing security. Urban exploration is not solely about illicit activities, as I have been exploring abandonments legally for years through communications with various property owners, businesses and even the military. Security is a side effect, especially if the property has been vandalized -- but urban exploration is not vandalism, and both are wholly separate topics. Urban exploration is also not solely breaking and entering, although some do take the task to do so.

We came to a consensus to rewrite portions of the text and remove some of the dubious claims, and the page was unprotected after I made a request at RFPP. Papa has made little effort outside of trying to equate urban exploration with vandalism/breaking and entering and/orproviding rather dubious sources or original research. If you could, some outside eyes would be appreciated on the talk page.

As for the protection, I reverted on the basis that Papa has been conducting drive-by taggings, offering little rationale and stating that other editors have the burden to provide the proof of evidence that the article is not POV, instead of the tagger providing the burden of proof that the article is. I reverted to Papa's version and then I had to step out to a meeting. I was not informed of the thread on ANI (it's no longer watchlisted) nor was any communication given to me about it -- had it been done, I would have been happy to discuss the edits. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Entirely plausible, you both have a point up to a point, but in my view the real issue here is as I stated in my clarification: if Papa can provide sourced and neutral text to support his view then fine, but simply disagreeing with an article does not make the article POV unless he can prove it. Please God we don't have to honour every single assertion that an article is POV because it fails to give sufficient (for values of sufficient equating to WP:UNDUE in the eyes of everyone else) weight to this or that POV. No article would be safe from that.  I think your removal was perfectly valid, the dispute is not a big one and concerns only one aspect of the subject, tagging the whole article as failing policy because one user disputes the amount of weight given to a problem he perceives with the subject is, well, frankly rather silly. So: I'm with you on that oe, it was a very small matter blown out of all proportion by someone who seems to have become much too heated. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in a duplicate thread, WP:AN. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

CBSNews archival
Actually, the bear is Catholic. Benedict's defecation habits are best left unsaid. Sceptre (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back 2
Just watch out for secret tribunals. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you back too, Guy. And OM should learn to expect the Spanish Inquisition after that last one. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vince Bell
In case you hadn't noticed, Gwen Gale has basically rewritten the article on Vince Bell, so you might want to withdraw the AFD nom. Zagalejo^^^ 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gerstein Blacklisted Link
This link was whitelisted see: --Joel Mc (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is not a reliable source, quite apart from the link abuse issues. We also have an ongoing dispute between two rival claimants to ownership of the intellectual property rights which means that any links to either site results in a flood of emails. I'm sorry, I know it is hard to find a translation of this document, but that site (or more accurately those sites) cause so much trouble that we really can't have any links. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I am still confused as I believed that I had followed the procedure for whitelisting a blacklisted link and received a positive response from Hu12 as indicated above.  Why two different responses?
 * I have been doing some exploring around about the link: deathcamps.org/belzec/gerstein.html and understand that it is the legitimate site see This is carefully explained on: deathcamps.org/copyrights&freeuse.html. The site death-camps.org seems to be clearly the bogus site (a quick glance through it shows that they did not remove objectional images which was done by deathcamps.org. I am unable to find any reference on the internet to the ongoing dispute re: intellectual property rights; can you give me a reference that I might pursue?  I could imagine that the flood of emails is daunting, but in effect it seems to be an effective tactic so far by deniers to keep references to the legitimate and very useful site out of Wikipedia, not to mention blocking access from WP to the only English translation of the Gerstein Report on the internet.  It is a familiar tactic of the holocaust deniers to claim they are just presenting a rival point of view. Any suggestions as to how I might pursue this issue would be much appreciated.--Joel Mc (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lon (very long) OTRS thread on this. Both sites assert that they are the legitimate owner of the intellectual property, both make a case for it, neither establishes that they should be accepted as a reliable source, subtle bias in translation would require an expert to assess.  I file both sites under the heading of "more tourble than it's worth" since the mere presence of a link to either causes the other apoplexy. Both are a massive time-sink. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical pederastic couples
I tried to strip out the unsourced and speculative entries, but was blindly reverted twice. So I just deleted it. FCYTravis (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll get no argument from me. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad everyone else feels otherwise. I need a break. FCYTravis (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I notice
Hello, JzG. I have posted a note at WP:AN/I asking that a previously uninvolved admin revert yesterday's DF67's changes to the Mar Diop article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorted out now, replying for benefit of archive bot. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

 * Hi JzG. This user requests a deleted copy of the page Neo-Tech.  Before it was turned into a disambig, it was an actual aritlce about a software thing of some sort.  Could you give it to him?  Thank you, and with regards,  Shapiros10  contact me My work  22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he might mean this: - it doesn't need undeleting. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, JzG. Maybe we'll see each other again :)  Shapiros10  contact me My work  22:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

title of one of the links at RV article
I used the exact title of the article, just as it appears on the linked page, lol. Well, I put quotes around the titles so it's clearer that I didn't make up them. At this pace, I'll have to start using the "cite web" template :D. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should still avoid giving the appearance of legitimacy for fictional concepts. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barresi
Hey there. Paul Barresi has been fully protected since April. If you have a minute, could you take a look and see where the article is and if it can be unprotected in the near future? Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not as long as there are warriors for WP:TRUTH on the talk page. I'll ask Jimbo. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance...
would appreciate your input on the Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents proposal, so it can be enacted or dismissed soon. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents while you're looking? I'm having a hard time attracting interest...  brenneman  08:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TABOO
Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

thank you very much
For the clarification on ANI. I have already been labeled a pro-pedophilia activist on Wiki Review, and was becoming scared, indeed about editing here. Your post came as a relief to me. Thank you very much for clarifying the remark. Jeffpw (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, sorry it was ambiguous. This is very sensitive, I should have been more careful.  See also WP:TABOO noted above, which makes a fair point. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

cultural reference?
Have you seen the movie The Princess Bride?

The context here is the delicate poor sourcing spat on ANI. There is a line from the movie which would make a great userbox for situations like this. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do tell? I've never seen it. Malcolm is more my line in films, although I think Cry Freedom is the best I have seen as an all-round experience. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After Wallace Shawn's character responds to several repeated plot developments with "Inconceivable", Mandy Patinkin's tells him, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." This from youtube has the quote, but listening to Shawn's self righteous lisps of disbelief leading up to this is truly precious. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you see the relevance to this and similar cases. A good userbox it would make though, no? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
... for showing faith in me re. that unblock request. I really appreciate it :) - A l is o n  ❤ 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * De nada. If someone trustworthy is prepared to take on the task of rehabilitating a past problem user, and they show that they accept that their past behaviour was a problem and show sincere commitment to the project and to avoiding past mistakes, then it's time to WP:AGF.  As my friend Harry says, "trust but verify", I'm sure you will be watching for anything nasty on the horizon, and that's good enough for me. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Thank you so much JzG. It was so encouraging to have your comments there. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts
Guy, you should know better than to do a wholesale revert to a version that dates several years back. If you have an issue, bring it up on the talk page for consensus and discussion, or attempt a RFC as SA has done in the past. Or at the very least, let me know about it first. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  12:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a featured version. The new version is the result of sustained POV-pushing, and the subject of a self-congratulatory article by the POV-pusher concerned in the fringe journal which has co-ordinated this abuse for years. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and I think someone made a statement at AN to the effect of, the version from mediation (which had a lot of components from the featured version) had become too watered down. I share those concerns -- but I'd like to see it on the talk page first :) seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Hey, I did not know you had retired/are tired ... But I just want to convey my condolences, Steve (Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

If you're still not retired, can you look at this?

 * WP:ANI

I don't know whether you're resting but Lucyintheskywithdada whom you observed is reported by his usual behaviors. I would appreciate if you leave a note there. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Barrapunto
Hi, can you please undelete Barrapunto? Anthony (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire contents is: "Barrapunto is a Spanish blog inspired by Slashdot (the word Barrapunto is the literal Spanish translation of Slashdot)" plus two links.  I think you can do better than that without even trying :-) Guy (Help!) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kyle Schickner
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kyle Schickner, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Kyle Schickner. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jons63 (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Enduring frivolous complaints
Greetings…just wanted to let you know that that I copy/pasted one of your posts from the Yamashita’s gold discussion page onto another frivolous ANI complaint. Hope you don’t mind. It can be found [here] Jim (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Daphne Civic Center
Pardon the intrusion but I note that you commented on the AfD discussion for Daphne Civic Center. I have subsequently expanded this article and provided a number of references to reliable third-party sources. I humbly request that you give this article a second look and see if this is sufficient to change your !vote on this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. - Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppet warning
No, actually I am not using such accounts. Nexusb (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * quack, quack. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nexusb
I will not assume malice from your comments regarding the deletion of a bio I wrote on Bernard Edlington my I am sure you are a busy admin and whatnot. I am NOT him, close friend, or his employee. I DO work for a company called Nexus llc, which I think is named different from his. You CAN check my logs, ip whatever. If you think that is a coincidence well that word is immensely popular among us CG geeky crowd here, probably due to the Blade Runner cult status. Also You said it was the only bio I wrote, that too is wrong. I have a couple more, I am still writing, you can check my logs for those. I know I am slow, which was the reason for the first deletion. Learnt from my mistakes an now check my facts. Please do not assume too much, your assumptions may be wrong in some cases. I would love an apology, I really did not intend any malice by creating a bio.Nexusb (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever, you are a single-purpose account and that article fails our inclusion guidelines. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * some of my other contributions: User:Nexusb/Kenichi Anjyo Fumihiko Sori‎ Nexusb (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your contributions. Most of them are to  and debates relating to him. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your time. Yes,true most of my contributions have been to Bernard Edlington. Like I said first the stub I created was very small, only a little better than User:Nexusb/Kenichi Anjyo. The page was rightly deleted and moved to user-space. As that was my first bio I had to see what was required by admins to create a page from scratch. I went out of my way to create it. Of course the page was only be edited my me in user-space. That is why I have started User:Nexusb/Kenichi Anjyo in user space so I wont bother anyone. About "and debates relating to him", no actually all of the edits I have made were regarding outstanding technical people in the CG industry in Japan. The edits I made on Fumihiko Sori‎'s page had no links to Bernard Edlington, his company or whatever. I just cannot see how you can call me a SPA when its obviously not true. I am really sorry, but everything you have accused me of so far is just not true. Accuse me of bad editing that's fine because my English is awful, but SPA no way. Nexusb (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD noms
I am concerned that you seem to be using as a justification for nominating articles for deletion the facts that they are unsourced, orphaned etc. without researching the notability of the topic first. Am I wrong? If you are, it is disruptive and a drain on Afd participants' time and energy. Could you be convinced to try and source articles first, or to tag them, or send them to WP:ICU, or at the very least WP:PROD them? Any response appreciated. Regards, Skomorokh  09:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsourced BLPs whiich have remained unsourced for a long time - usually since creation - and have no inbound links, seem to me to be good candidates for deletion. If the attention that AfD raises brings improvements to the article, that is a good thing. These are articles that have carried maintenance tags for years in most cases, if people care that much then maybe they should be cruising the maintenance categories; it does seem to me a little odd that people are happy to leave an article in a state which does not comply with policy but will kick up a stink if it is even nominated for deletion. Please be assured that my intention is improvement of the project here. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but I think that's an abuse of the process. Article rescuers (to use a melodramatic term) have limited time and resources; to waste it on subjects whose notability is not in serious doubt is damaging to the project, I think. If the articles are marginal and tagged for a long time, please consider using PRODs. Stubbing to an uncontroversial few lines is a good way to tackle BLP concerns in neglected articles, as is merging them to a better-watched overtopic. Could you consider something like this in future? Thanks for the polite response. Sincerely, Skomorokh  10:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I have been here for a few years now and I know what works. Genuinely good subjects do get rescued at AfD, and sadly some people also waste prodigious amounts of time trying to find non-trivial sources for trivial subjects because conceptually they like the idea that we might have an article on, say, every building in New York.  I don't think Wikipedia is a directory, and unsourced articles or articles sourced only from directory entries do not fall within policy.  When they have had maintenance tags for years, it is time to do something drastic.  This is what I do, you are absolutely free to try another way.  If the original authors did their job then there would be no need for article rescuers. Worst of all are the ones which get "keep and expand" and then six months later come back because they were kept but not expanded.  Article rescue is good, but please accept that nuking unsourced articles is also good. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if your concern is nuking unsourced articles (a not ignoble cause) rather than baiting inclusionists to rescue them, why not use WP:PROD? Much less antagonistic, no arguments, only those serious about improving articles tend to patrol them. Skomorokh  10:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I use PROD too, but where there is some chance the article might get rescued I send it to AFD because that genuinely does seem to work: there have beena number of truly abysmal articles rescued when they appear on AfD.  Now for me, AfD should be able to deliver an "expedited cleanup" result, where the article's advocates are given a month to fix it otherwise it's deleted.  And there should be a lobby for article rescue people to pick up new AfDs and get a one week stay of execution on the debate if they think the subject can be rescued.  But in the end AfD is five days and that is usually long enough for real improvements. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Prisongangleader
I'll ask here for you to reconsider this block. There is no evidence presented either extemporaneously or at SSP that this account is a sock of a banned user. If the account is not an account of a banned user, there is little cause to ban it based on SOCK. I noted on the summary of the block log that you said this was a probable sock of Fred day. Do we have any evidence to support that claim? I can't see any reason why this account should be blocked indefinitely without some process at work. Please respond either here or on my talk page. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you block User:87.114.2.150 based on the evidence I compiled here:
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Prisongangleader
 * User:87.114.2.150 two contributions:
 * (00:50, 27 July 2008) (00:47, 27 July 2008)
 * ...were after User:Prisongangleader was indefinitely banned on (18:59, 26 July 2008), so even if  User:Prisongangleader is not User:Frederick day, User:87.114.2.150/User:Prisongangleader was still violating his indefinete block.
 * Inclusionist (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Check this out
If you are online. Harsh Light and its creator. --triwbe (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You have...
mail. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say...
...I've been reading serveral of your comments directed at both vandals and also occasional and established editors, and I really do not like your tone nor your style. I find you very offensive at times, and at others just downright rude. Man with a tan (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this isn't my talk page but I can't see how this is helpful or constructive criticism. Perhaps if you want to link to a few diffs and explain how the block messages may be better worded that could be possible.  Or you could ask a question rather than just comment without leaving room for response.  I'm not sure what you intended to get out of leaving this message (Guy, as always, if interjected comments aren't wanted, remove this or let me know and I'll remove it). Protonk (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not fussed, really. I have noticed that a lot of especially the younger members of the community have a problem with any kind of perceived authority figure, and of course I have teenaged children myself so am quite used to this.  I don't use the template messages because they are rarely descriptive; I'd rather tell the user what the problem is, exactly.  And there's no real point pretending that a problem does not exist when clearly it does, such as single-purpose accounts which exist solely to promote some SourceForge project or "independent" music group / film maker / whatever.  But generic non-specific grumbles don't help.  Guy (Help!) 13:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mugaliens...
...is asking for an unblock. Not familiar with the case, but he's disavowing his past editing with respect to fashion. Thoughts? – xeno  ( talk ) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Guy. I've commented on Mugaliens' page. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC).


 * I think you meant "disinclined to unblock"... – xeno  ( talk ) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, already fixed, thanks. A tendentious sockpuppeteer, prolific wikilawyer and soup-spitter par excellence, one for whom the problem was always everybody else. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting SPA
Do you have any idea what this is about? NJGW (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * None at all, but it's an amusingly deranged troll :-) Guy (Help!) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paul Wehage
An article that you have been involved in editing, Paul Wehage, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Paul Wehage. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? David  Shankbone  22:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)