User talk:JzG/Archive 38

Blue Mountains panther
As someone interested in science articles, can you help keep Blue Mountains panther in compliance with our WP:V policy? -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Pierre wrapup
Hey, Guy. Could I ask one last favour of you with this Pierre Larcin thing? You probably noticed that his community ban has been enacted on AN; Thatcher came back regarding my checkuser question saying that anon-only rangeblocks on three /16 ranges would likely be all that we'd need to shut him down for now. Being utterly clueless on rangeblocks, I was hoping you might be able to do that when you get a moment. Ariconte came up with the relevant ranges, from the looks of things. Again, thanks for the help with this. I'd sort it myself, but he's still poking me with his little flimsy stick (he called me a Rotarian the other night, which is like calling the Pope Buddhist...) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeez: Three /16s? That is nearly 200,000 addresses.  Are you sure Thatcher wasn't employing irony with the "all"? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See, this is why I ask experts. He did point out that an anon-only wouldn't affect registered users. Maybe I should've gone with a less stressed CU on this one, though, judging from recent history. =/ Tony Fox (arf!) 04:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would not be the end of the world if he were really prolific, but the whack-a-mole game is probably worth playing for a short while anyway, and we can always sprot his target articles. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Mostly he's just following me and Ariconte around and insulting us in edit summaries, at this point - recently, me, more than him, and really it doesn't bother me. It's just obvious that he's not going to stop. I'll keep blocking as he appears for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And you could probably ask for oversight if there are gratuitously insulting edit summaries - in the end the one thing trolls cannot stand is for their nonsense to be quietly deleted. Just look at Grawp's edit summaries. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Draft of the Family Airlines article
User:Nil Enne suggested that I start a draft of a Family Airlines article that complies with BLP. So I started: User:WhisperToMe/Family Airlines WhisperToMe (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Nil Enne does not exist, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I meant User:Nil Einne - Anyway, if you do not mind I would like to have some feedback on the draft I started. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Feedback Request
Hi. I'm sure you are busy... but if you do have a free moment.... I would be most thankful if you would offer any feedback on the journalreview article on my talk page - living as a draft. this is one of my first wiki projects, and I've tried hard to make it of a quality appropriate for wikipedia, and to reference the article well using peer reviewed literature. So far i've done this with some initial help of admins - but I've received little feedback since to help guide me. warmest regards EBMdoc (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

m:User:COIBot/XWiki/zenairulm.com
Can you clarify what you meant there? &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Door with Seven Locks
Regarding this edit. I'm a bit confused since you took out a reference in addition to the rest of the edit. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The numerous anon-added references to "Scott Ashlin of 1000 misspent hours" prompted me to google the man, and it seems that there is no evidence that his opinion or the site on which it is presented are significant. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Have now seen that in the larger context of other edits you made in that string. Makes more sense. Also seems to not be a reliable source. So I'll good. I'll go back to my tea kettle now. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

David Abrahams
Hi Guy,

A few months ago you redirected an article based on BLP and an OTRS ticket: Since then it has been recreated and redirected several times. I've recently redirected it again, based on your initial redirection, but I don't have access to the OTRS ticket. Would you mind commenting here: Talk:David_Abrahams_(Labour_party_donor)? Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Family Airlines page
Hi, I happened across this page while doing research and I'm not entirely sure why you deleted it. You said that there was some conflict with another entity, but I see no other such page on Wikipedia. Considering the page is now gone it's difficult to see where the conflict arose from, and it wiped off potentially valuable data for research purposes. Is it possible to restore this page and simply tag it with a cleanup request if necessary? It seems overkill to remove it entirely. - mixvio (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The conflict is between two legal entities with the same name, which the director of at least one asserts are not the same entity, but the article implied were the same entity. That and the fact that it included personal details about the director that were not actually relevant to either legal entity, giving the appearance  of a WP:COATRACK. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI about David Abrahams (Labour party donor) protection
I don't want to piss you off so will just link to this request for a review of the OTRS. First time I've run into this process, so pardon me if screwed it up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually after thinking incorrectly Jayjg was OTRS volunteer who did WP:OTRS ticket 2008030910010087, and Jayjg not revealing who it is, and OTRS volunteers not knowing who it is, some of us were on Talk:David_Abrahams_(Labour_party_donor) wondering if you might know who it is and tell me so that I can contest this with him, and not as has become necessary - with compliance of OTRS volunteers - on the OTRS talk page. Sorry if I piss you off :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not pissed off at all, don't worry. I have replied there. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I know you are the OTRS volunteer and have copied to David Abrahams (Labour party donor) talk my concern, do I need to copy it here or is that sufficient for you? And who is Cary so I can put the comment on his/her web site. Thanks. 71.163.215.161 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep debate in one place. Cary is user:Bastique. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I'm a bit concerned by your protection of this article after involvement in redirecting. You may not have been aware of this discussion, which resulted in a very clear consensus that there was not a BLP violation and the article should remain. I hope you'll at least reconsider the protection and send to AfD to see if there's any change in such consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject disagrees, though. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That could be brought up at the second AfD, but I don't think that overrides near-unanimous consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you have further objection I will then return it to AfD, unless you would prefer to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal apology offer
You were the admin to indef block Skoojal, who then went on and block evading sockpuppeted some.

Skoojal emailed me and posted what sounds like a legitimate contrite request to be unblocked to his talk page, along with an acknowledgement that he'd done wrong and an offer to apologize to Will, who he had abused some. I don't think there's any urgent hurry, but if you can drop in on User talk:Skoojal and follow up with your input when you get some time it might be useful.

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am extemely reluctant to unblock due to external issues with this user, directed against wikipedians. Perhaps we can discuss this more openly by email. user talk:JzG 15:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Carnifex
Hey, just to let you know, I didn't make that page, I think Victory Records did. I don't particularly care whether they have a page or not - delete it if you want. Kung Foo (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

43.244.132.168
Hi. May I ask if it was your intention to change the block I made of from a hard block to a soft block? The IP is clearly a long-term IP used by a single person and changing it to a soft block only encourages block evasion through named accounts. If it were a shared IP or a dynamic IP, ok, there's no way around that, but with the history of that IP appearing to all come from a single person over a period of 8 months, there's no reason not to hard block it for whatever duration is needed. Thanks. --B (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The intention was to extend it based on similar abuse from other IPs and accounts, not change it - feel free to fix my error. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1
Yes, I agree that "50th A1 is a bit contentious for a heading" but I suspect that a certain person will quickly revert your edit. Biscuittin (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Guy says the heading is contentious, I disagree. Per NPOV I have reverted until he can provide a source that describes it as such, there is nothing that stops me from doing so, unless both of you wish to assert that consensus can override the NPOV policy. I hope Guy realises that this rather hasty contribution was of course going to be reverted, seeing as it was not justified on any new grounds that have not already been put forward and rejected, i.e. that the presence of an unsourced opinion from a wikipedian made on a talk page does not represent the existence of an actual controversy. I have asked you time and a again to provide a source, any source, that refutes the claim that it is the 50th A1. The best that has been forthcoming is that it is occassionaly described as a replica in the mainstream media, without further qualification as to what that means regarding the classification of Tornado, and certainly not refuting that it is an A1. It does not support anything with regard to refuting that it is not the 50th A1. By anybody's definition of replica, each member of a class is a replica of the prototype. At the very least if you said that is what it supported, you would then have to explain why the replica was given a brand new number, when other replicas wear the number of the locomotive they are wishing to 'replicate'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is contentious was given by Bhtpbank at Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1: "On a point of order, the references [2], [3] and [4] that claim this locomotive to be the 50th are less than independent. Two of the three are from the A1 locomotive society that clearly has a large self interest in promoting (and marketting) this engine as being the 50th. This engine has been produced to make money, and hence I believe these sources cannot be used to jusitfy this loco being the 50th as they do not meet any WP:NPOV criteria. And before anyone gets upset, I strongly believe that where there is contention (as there clearly is), then all sources must also be NPOV. And the plain fact is that the sources from the A1 society mus be classed as POV. Bhtpbank (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)" Biscuittin (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He could not even get the basic facts right, let alone give a convincing argument that those sources support the existence of a controversy. Only one of the three is from the Trust. So, I ask you again, where is the source to prove a controversy exists, bar your own opinion? MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The controversy is obvious. As far as I am aware, you are the only person who denies that there is a controversy. Biscuittin (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "The controversy is obvious" - If any more proof were needed you do not get the NPOV policy at all. Not even one bit of it. I have told you how it works, others have told you how it works . You simply do not listen, or do not want to understand. (Or even worse, you actualy think this is an issue for WP:IAR). Either way, unless you say something new, or say something right, I'm done on this page. MickMacNee (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mick, with this edit you have proven beyond all posisble doubt that it is you who does not understand NPOV policy. To insist on inclusion of a disputed claim - disputed here and in the real world - in the header of a section is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE.  Where a claim is disputed we do not assert it as fact, we attribute it to its champions, and we do so in a way which is balanced.  And the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion, not on others to satisfy you of exclusion.  Now drop it before you end up blocked yet again. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite wrong. The opposers of the view have not provided a single source for evidence of the supposed contentiousness. Given the findings of the recent cold fusion case, this was an extremely bad call, and you have actually given undue weight to the opinions of random editors with agendas based on their POV, over sources. This wasn't right, and you will now see, that your action will now be used to make all sorts of other removals of sourced information from the article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that WP:ONUS does not have consensus either. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure I'm wrong, that's why I am an admin and you have a block log as long as your arm for tendentious editing. Consensus is measured by what happens not by votes, and the principle is well-established by now. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Policy is interpreted according to what you think your status is, rather than what it actually says. You should get along nicely with Bicuittin and Tony May then, because they would much rahter discuss my block log than actually read any policies. MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, absolutely right. And now you stop being silly before you get blocked.  Well done for spotting it. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you honeslty believe you have discouraged edit warring here, I suggest you go right back to the beginning of the disupte and see which admins ignored my early warnings of edit warring, and see who was reverting content as "vandalism". You have merely shown me here that I need to get some socks so as not to appear to break 3RR or be reverting alone, while I keep up the pretense by occassionaly talking absolute shit on the talk page in reply to people who turn up and comment without reverting, because you won't ultimately bother to read it when you finally turn up to threaten people based on the most simplistic of readings of consensus (whoever is reverting least is right). Were you even aware that one of the most recent reverters is a quite obvious meat puppett?. I suppose it doesn't matter, because as we now see on the talk page, he is a supporter of your personal view, that I am some crazy nutter, and that nobody else has ever opposed Tony May simply because they haven't been reverting (which is proveably false with a little effort, but why should I now even waste my time proving that to you now, when you would just hand out another nicely phrased 'fuck off' as above). MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All the classic signs of MPOV, as I have come to expect from you. It really is a bore, you know. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, JzG. I have hopefully summarised the situation at User:Tony May/A1 (sorry it's so long, it does get a bit complicated). This includes advice from a railway historian. Right now I need bed :) --Tony May (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

u roXor
. Thanks. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I like the obvious ones :-) Guy (Help!) 21:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

roXor encore
Belatedly.... I really appreciated your weighing in here about the ongoing Mccready wikidrama. Not just because you agreed with me and were thus obviously fair and balanced ;-), but because you correctly grok that this dispute is not about defending science, but rather an ongoing pattern of fairly bad wikiquette. WP:SPOV fine by me, WP:TE, not so much.

Happy editing.... as well as breaks therefrom (I'm happiest when I edit least, actually. I've learned a lot of stuff here, but the system is kind of broken, etc.). cheers, Jim Butler (t) 10:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It: admin
Re: your post to WP:AN - if you want to get ahold of an it: admin, I'd recommend posting at their embassy. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of cooperative editing
Guy, I would appreciate your response on AN/I to the topic ban review.Mccready (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Heyyy...
"Tax collectors" I can understand, but what's wrong with us pagan-types? (Okay, technically I'm not a pagan. Technically I'm a None Of The Above. Still, what did the pagans do to anyone, to get lumped in with the by-god TAX COLLECTORS?)

(Note: actually I stopped by to ask for advice about the matter directly above, but since you got the same general note I got from Mr. Mc, I'll assume you'll show up soonish. I could use some reinforcements!) GJC 08:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing my user page
You are free to disagree, but as I would hope you are aware, it is generally ill-advised to edit other editors' user pages. Regardless of whether they (in your opinion) are helping or not. There is still a margin of free speech on Wikipedia, actually. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about if you refrain form pointless grandstanding? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, it is only "pointless grandstanding" in the views of you and fellow admins. I think this has something to do with your general view on criticism to the behavioir of admins and your views on free speech. --Law Lord (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that the legion of frustrated POV-pushers and other ne'er-do-wells entirely agree with you. But I don't think that they, any more than you, actually know my views on free speech. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. Then you were just being condescending. My apologies. --Law Lord (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

premature suggestion of archiving
Guy,
 * 1) You did not respond to my post but instead suggested archiving. I've copied it here for you. "With due respect Guy I think you are mistaken. Personal feelings don't enter the equation. Good science and good wikipeida articles do. Correct me if I'm wrong but your principal argument is that I am unable to work productively with people with an opposing viewpoint. How many diffs would you require to change your mind? Have you seen the strenuous efforts I have made on the acupuncture talkpage and other talkpages to gain consensus from true believers (often as the lone science editor)? Do you know what my ratio of discussion to mainspace edits is? I also don't understand your threat "carry on as you are". Am I not entitled to be judged on evidence? Am I not entitled to put the evidence? This issue is at root a content dispute about acupuncture with an editor who now insists his claims on acupuncture are supported by WHO. I'd be grateful for your considered response.Mccready (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"
 * 2) You suggested the discussion be archived before Gladys had responded.
 * 3) I'm not sure you realise this has already laid for a "long time (as in several months)".
 * 4) I'd be grateful if you would say why you think (given that several months have already passed, that even my detractor says I have made good edits, that Scientizzle said my recent edits were ok) it would not be quicker and more efficient to lift the topic ban now and replace it if necessary.Mccready (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not persuaded me, or anyone else worthy of note. End of, really. As I said at the end of the thread, you can go one of two ways: drop it for a decently long time, or go to ArbCom. Either is fine by me.  Guy (Help!) 09:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido, Tekaphor and CFS
Hi Guy,

You commented about Guido and the usefulness of his contributions versus his approach to editing. There is another editor, User:Tekaphor, who is extremely civil and does good research (see here for instance). I have been trying to encourage him/her to contribute as much as possible. I have no real prolem with some of Guido's opinions (though I believe the emphasis he would place on them in the articles would clearly be undue weight - some people do believe there is a psychological component to CFS and it's illegitemate to portray them all as cranks or flatly wrong) but how he expresses it is/was not helpful. Anyway, 'tis neither here nor there but if you want to drop Tekaphor an encouraging note, it's there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think Guido is fundamentally decent, unlike some we have seen; it is possible that my impression of him is better than it should be because the others are so bad, of course, but I hope not. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

84.92.92.218
Can you elaborate on the block of 84.92.92.218 when you get a chance? Cheers, seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  01:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Guy, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.-- VS  talk 11:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a good one, Guy. :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  12:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, friends. Santa is in Brisbane right now, and I am wrapping up presents and listenign to Victor Hely-Hutchinson's most excellent Carol Symphony :-) Guy (Help!) 13:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:84.92.92.218
Just a heads up to let you know a block-evading IP is requesting unblock. I would but don't have the full context in front of me. With regard, Caulde  23:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was responding to his unblock request too. Could you perhaps place his username clearly in either his block log, or on his talk page, so that other admins can respond intelligently to his unblock request?  Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Unblock declined. Caulde  15:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
When I give an expression of thanks and I am wishing someone a Merry Christmas, the only possible agenda I have is to give someone an expression of thanks and the wish of a Merry Christmas. As for the second assertion, the opinion on the issue in question is evenly split among the people who were actually part of the discussion (with an emphasis on the word opinion). Ecoleetage (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, so you insist you are "vindicated" despite several people saying that you aren't. See MPOV.  And do listen to Uncle G, he knows of what he speaks. Have a good one, Guy (Help!) 13:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And people who were actually involved in the AfD said that Uncle G's reversion (which was based in large part on his mistaken notion that the AfD only lasted two hours before the WP:SNOW closure) was incorrect. This is a traffic in opinions, not an assault on stone-chiseled facts. Uncle G is entitled to his opinion and I would like to believe that I am entitled to mine. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. I hope that's not deliberate.  Guy (Help!) 15:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am more than aware of my failings as an editor and as a person. I place no special claim of wealth in my opinions and I am often surprised that people invest any value in what I have to say. I don't think poorly of anyone on this project and I sincerely hope that people don't think poorly of me. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jolly good. Enough of this, then. Merry Christmas, if I may speak as an "out" Christian. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And a Merry Christmas to you, too -- as one "out" Christian to another! I hope you and your loved ones have the best for this holiday and for the coming year! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)



Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

User:News4a2
Hi - in case you haven't seen the background, there's the discussions at Talk:Physician_assistant and ANI archive 501. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, it seems he's another conspiracy theorist. I suspect the block should be extended to indefinite :-( Guy (Help!) 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Never a dull moment around here! -- Zim Zala Bim talk  22:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi
Khoikhoi seems to be incomunicado on this. I understand that admins have other things to do during the holidays, but I think it would be really fair to lift the block against Iross1000 until explanations of the fault of the user are provdided, and what behaviour he should change. Well-respected users like Sebastian Helm and Taprobanus have also expressed their bewilderment about this block. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks and the editor has contributed a lot more stub/start qaulity articles since then. Taprobanus (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not actionable
Taken alone, none of those edit summaries are over the top, taken together it shows an editor who seems to be having a little trouble keeping his cool. Now in this case not a blockable reason, but a warning is definitely warranted and a reminder to play nice regardless of the circumstances. Playing nice ensures the dispute stays focused on what it should be focused on and not having to deal with civility issues on top of that. Civility problems make other editors want to stay away and don't help the project. My point was that if an editor is constantly taking these little digs at opponents, regardless of whether or not they're right and regardless of whether or not the other person is doing the same thing, it poisons the editing environment for everyone. An isolated case isn't blockable, an editor that has a history of these little attacks however is beginning to approach that territory as their actions become widespread and effect many other users. As this becomes a problem they often don't separate legitimate trolls from regular users and treat them all the same if someone disagrees with them over issue X. Nipping it in the bud before it becomes a long term issue is preferable over having to block a contributor because they can't seem to play nice with everything, at least in my opinion.--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a warning, but perhaps a few friendly words. But the major problem was the complainant, whose behaviour is that of the WP:TRUTH-bringer. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Email
Just a head's up; I emailed you with a question. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 09:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Help
I was going through Category:Conspiracy theories and found two articles that need help:
 * Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 -> Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, renamed because it is all about conspiracy theories.

I could not renamed this one because it is a mix of three different things: Perhaps it would be best to split this article into three pieces and give each one a proper title. Hurricane Katrine Kookery would be short and accurate, but I suspect that would not go over well. :-) Could you have a look and advise? Jehochman Talk 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina
 * 1) Pseudoscience - Supernatural causation, divine retribution
 * 2) Fringe science - Global warmings caused the hurricane.  Researchers say there is no evidence of this.
 * 3) Conspiracy theories - Various people blew up the levees on purpose, etc.
 * Ooh, we could have a template to link all these: kookery. This is sounding good :-) Seriously, the first thing that strikes me is the section on global warming.  That is not an alternative theory, it's the mainstream view: the hurricane was part of the escalating pattern of severe weather predicted by current thinking on global climate change.  So that should probably go to the main article.  I don't know how best to handle a mix of supernatural twaddle and conspiracy twaddle, though. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've relabeled the article Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. This seems to be a superset of pseudoscience, fringe science and conspiracy theories. The global warming part may need to be moved elsewhere. That looks more like science or protoscience. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sound thinking, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

mutual friend
Shortly after you did a block, an IP appeared on my usertalk page with a quite familiar tone. I would commend such comments to the trash, but my suspicions about this account have been on-going. Many thanks for your opinion thereon. Collect (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RBId. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request
Hey JzG. :) Just to inform you about Malikarcanum's unblock request. Perhaps you wish to comment on the talk page. Best wishes, —  Aitias  // discussion 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee
Hi I notice you just deleted Matt Lee as a G5? As far as I can tell it was created (after userfication) by User:Spartaz, who is neither banned nor blocked. Cheers, Amalthea  16:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the ANI thread, but again, User:Spartaz doesn't appear to be an SPA. -- Amalthea 16:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll post this at ANI then right away, no need to spread the discussion around. :) Cheers, Amalthea  16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Was a mistake, should have been G4, the dropdown text is very tiny on my browser right now. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed's travelling IP roadshow
Guy, you archived this list of dynamic IPs, along with the discussion following it. Since then, similar IPs have continued editing Talk:Cold fusion in the same way, but without the explicit claims to being [the formerly registered user] Jed Rothwell. Would you please clarify a couple of points for me? 1. Was there a problem with the list or just the subsequent comments? 2. Would you object to restoring the list for further additions? Thanks in advance.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

sbl/swl
Hi!

User talk:Stifle#sbl/swl, ,  ;-) -- seth (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee new DRV
This is a courtesy notice as you were involved in AFD, DRV or CSD's regarding various Matt Lee articles you may want to comment on the new DRV. Also, if you haven't already, you may also want to check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)