User talk:JzG/Archive 50

Simply Hired
Recently, I noticed that the page for Simply Hired was deleted:

21:46, 31 March 2010 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Simply Hired" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: User:Bburgart is almost certainly Bonnie Burgart, marketing associate at Simply Hired. Most edits are COI or spam. Article lacks credible sourcing.)

Is it possible that this page can be temporarily reinstated in order to provide credible sourcing? Or, should the page be rewritten with credible sourcing by someone without COI, like myself? When I noticed the page was gone I found it suspicious that it was removed around the same time that a few other similar competitor websites were also requested for removal by yourself, including Indeed.com and Buddingup. See below:

1. 21:52, 31 March 2010 (diff | hist) Employment website ‎ (rm. laundry list) 2. 21:49, 31 March 2010 (diff | hist) Buddingup ‎ (rm. deleted and questionable) (top) 3. 21:47, 31 March 2010 (diff | hist) Indeed.com ‎ (→See also: rm. deleted)

I'm not sure how the request for deletion works exactly, but I'll avoid suspicion that this was requested maliciously by a competitor to these companies. Your reasoning for deletion is valid, but I do feel that the page should exist as it is a notable and legitimate business according to the definitions outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP

So what's the best way to go about this? Should I make a request for deletion review and edit with credible sourcing? Or would it be better to just recreate the page from scratch?

Thank you for your time, Superhilac (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Superhilac


 * You could wait for someone uninvolved to independently decide to create the article. This mitigates the problem of your company's article getting out of date, as encyclopaedia pages are not very good for keeping up to date with news, and you will not be allowed to maintain the article yourself. Someone searching for your company in Google, say, would instead come to your up-to-date website, which you have complete control over. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You say "your company's", but I do not work for Simply Hired in any way shape or form. Are you saying that I would not be an appropriate author?  Superhilac (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Superhilac


 * Looking into it more thoroughly, I see that you weren't the problem editor on this article. If you go ahead, you have to take great care to use reliable secondary sources, rather than company press releases, to source your information. The company itself was clearly not happy with what the third party WIkipedia editors produced, so may intervene again, leading to rapid deletion and loss of your work. And even if you cross all the content obstacles, you'll almost certainly end up at a sceptical AfD given the recent company involvement, so you'll need to have all your ducks in a row. A gap of a few months is normally helpful when an article has been deleted, as a replacement for a newly deleted article is normally removed as a matter of course. JzG can give more advice, as he is more of an expert than me. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stephen. When I find the time, I'll work on it and reconstruct the page according to your suggestions.  I think that their page is still warranted, and I agree with everything you say in regards to Wikipedia not being appropriate for marketing.  I believe that their company website pops-up first on a Google search already, so it's not as if Wikipedia is the primary source for company news.  In any case, thanks again and if you prefer, I'll update this thread when I've re-constructed the page.  Superhilac (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Superhilac

Deleted lede trivium
Too funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Internet Brands corporate PR campaign on Wikipedia
Hi, I noticed you deleted some of the articles tagged, but the accounts under their control actually went around removing tags aggressively to disrupt deletion, oyu might want to check out Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents if you didn't before (I guess probably), I've put up a list now of the ones that the company "rescued" from you "evil neutral wikipedia admins" --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * == AfD nomination of CarsDirect ==

An article that you have been involved in editing, CarsDirect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

On the (deleted) article Alan Wilson (historian)
I wish to have a copy of the following deleted article, as it was last revised

Alan Wilson (historian)

In addition to agreeing with your decision to do this, I also am fairly certain that the person that the article addressed was actually partly or totally responsible for writing it.

If you are no longer an administrator, please provide an alternate source where I can get this article. If I was not supposed to write on the talk page, I apologize--I do not edit that often on this site, and I am quite unfamiliar with many rules. Mathmagic (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. The deleted article had significant issues. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 6 May 2010 (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. ==

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.

Also Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents – xeno talk 17:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD
I understand the respect you seem to have for my opinion, but speedying against the opinion of another admin shows anger at the author/subject, not judgment.  DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which article? Guy (Help!) 04:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits on German WP
Hi JzG, thanks for your edit on the German Wikipedia. However, we on the German WP don't have a policy stating that the subject of the article can dictate the content of it. You can read the German WP's policy on biographical articles about living persons here. Since a birth date can never be defamatory, libelous or in any way to the disadvantage of a person, the main question to ask is whether it is correct, i. e. whether it is properly sourced. And it is. &mdash; PDD 22:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do, however, have a complaint from an article subject about aggressive handling of this complaint, and the BLP policy applies to all projects. Why antagonise the guy for no reason? Guy (Help!) 22:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I neither have a complaint nor “a complaint about aggressive handling of this complaint”. Sorry. I have a biography, which (at least in the German WP) requires a birth date, and I have a valid source for that birth date. Hence the date stays. If you have a complaint from the article subject then please explain this to him. Thanks. &mdash; PDD 07:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely surprised if JzG wasn't responding to something on the WP:OTRS system. Spartaz Humbug! 08:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This might well be, and I'm sure he means well, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not how it's done in the German WP :-) &mdash; PDD 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC) PS: We have our own OTRS team, as I'm sure you are aware of.
 * I strongly suggest you email Jimbo and ask him about his attitude to including data which, while verifiable, is of no real significance and whose inclusion results in complaints from the subject. I am quite serious about that, if you need his direct email address or you want me to initiate the conversation then let me know. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You want to change the rules on de-WP, shouldn't you be the one sending mails to Jimbo? Or did I miss something here. By the way how can we be sure, the subject under review has given you the go-head to act on his behalf?--Radh (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what Jimbo has to do with it; if it's a habit on your project (en.wp) to ask his permission per mail then please do it, but don't try to change the rules on de.wp, a project in which you don't participate. Thanks for your understanding. If you want to discuss this further, do it on the talk page of the German article. &mdash; PDD 11:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Schmid did not ask us to write about him, we decided to do that. Having decided to do so, we should, as a mark of simple decent respect, not gratuitously include trivia he finds offensive. He is a private individual, not a politician or a rock star. Applying sensitivity in editorial judgement is normal and good. Jimbo is relevant in that the biography policy WP:BLP was mandated by him. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat: It is your error in judgment if you think you can act like this in a project you are not familiar with. Please take the debate where it belongs. The English Wikipedia is not our big brother, and you are in no position to overrule our editorial decisions and policies, but of course you are free to discuss, just like everybody else. &mdash; PDD 12:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll put your failure to understand my point down to linguistic differences. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * a) How can we/German-WP know what Schmid's wishes are? Even if in this case you know of his wishes and evrything is ok, you can imagine vandals having a field-day with a maybe-maybe not attitude on this.
 * b) Another question is: can people dictate to WP what should or not should be on WP (given it stays inside the law of course). Schmid's birthday like nearly all WP-information had been published (Schmid's date in a much used work of reference), so can people suddenly opt for privacy - after having given up this right?--Radh (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good questions. The original request went to the German WP:OTRS queues, so any of the German OTRS volunteers can see and verify the request; it only came back to me when a second email was sent to the main address, which drops into a central queue - I did not see the german request and still can't see it. Nobody gets to dictate what goes in articles but of course an article subject gets to express a preference, and where that preference does not degrade the article then we should normally go with it. Some requests are plainly silly, vexatious or unrealistic, asking us to remove significant and well-sourced material, but minor things like full dates of birth are of no real consequence. I find that in the long term it's easier to work with upset article subjects than against them. Sometimes this makes them very much less hostile, though of course not always.  Guy (Help!) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you reply, I will check it out. No, I can't, it's for the grownups only. --Radh (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OTRS volunteering is not very exclusive, you mainly have to have a thick skin, but I think you do have to be over 18 and identified to the Foundation. I'm over 18 by nearly 30 years so well in the clear on that one :-) Guy (Help!) 16:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons sig and user page
Hi JzG, as you have deleted your userpage here, it's really not much sense in linking to it from your Commons userpage and signature. Maybe you could change those links to point to this user talk instead? Cheers, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, I will do that. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking of such things
I tend to stay away from it now but this looks rather PR to me? Commons stuff going anyway. Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 13:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Spam-tastic, mate! ;-) Thanks, I have done the needful. I'd like to talk to you about the Jimbo thing, maybe privately if you prefer. I have some inside knowledge of what's going on and I'd like to help you at least see his side of this. He is very keen to keep the good people onside (and that very much includes you). Guy (Help!) 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Boring rubbish sent via the wonders that are email :) -- Herby talk thyme 14:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in the least bit boring. I think a lot of you, Herby, and this is definitely worth both our time. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * posting here even if it's Commons related, feel free to cut&paste there if preferred Well, I'll give you credit Guy for being one of the few trying actually to do some damage limitation with regards to the impression the recent actions by user:Jimbo Wales have left (I'm certainly left with the impression that "respect for the community" is a slogan and not a reality), so here's a challenge to do some more. Trying really hard to stick with a different wikipedia-slogan, "Assuming good faith", I have to assume Jimbo acted with the best intentions & and there have to be reasons for the urgency that haven't (and could not have) been disclosed. The damage/rescue operation is done (depending on the view of it) & now is the time for trying to mend what was broken in the process. That is not primarly about restoring those of the deletedd files that never should have been deleted in the first place, but restoring the trust of the community (primarly Commons I believe) in Jimbo and the Foundation that Jimbos perceived arrogance recently have deleted. I left Commons a year ago, but I still care about that "place" and the people trying to maintain it - those people deserve a better explanation than what Jimbo/WMF has offered so far. If you have any "inside information" that could be shared, please do so. IMO they also really deserve an apology, but that's something Jimbo would have to take care of himself. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that he did act with the best intentions, in fact I know he did, and I know his views on working with "good people" and not against them. The best way to sort this kind of thing out is for people to actually ask what he meant, what he was trying to achieve, and why, and then set about doing what is needed. There is significant collateral damage to the Wikimedia Foundation right now due to the historical use of Commons as a dumping-ground for porn. I can't explain why Jimbo deleted the historical prints or line art. I guess that was a simple mistake, and it has been rectified. It should not distract form the fact that a lot of Commons content simply should not be there. I think that virtually every self-made picture of genitalia should be removed, for example. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on meta:
--Gmaxwell (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Michel Tardieu
Should perhaps have gone to AfD rather than being speedied? Deletion review/Log/2010 April 30 refers.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Village pump discussion
I mentioned you at a discussion about confusing signatures. I don't mean to criticize you personally — such things are permitted by the current policy, so you've done nothing wrong. But I do think that admins and Twinkle users should be required to use the same signature as the user name. Since User:Guy already appears to be under your control, hopefully this proposal should be no hardship to you even if it proves to be unexpectedly well received. Wnt (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Batchelor-Harley.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Batchelor-Harley.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

More dross
Here - cheers (yeah I know I could tag it but it is waaay to complicated) -- Herby talk thyme 11:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This one has an attitude... -- Herby talk thyme 14:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still there (or back) -- Herby talk thyme 09:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Women's Post
The article, while a stub, still had relevant information and was fairly well written, so A7 would not apply to it in the slightest. I also could have sworn that it had reliable sources, which would make G11 not apply as well. It should have gone up for AfD, not been speedy deleted. I also do not think a user involved in a related AfD should be the one to delete the article, which the deletion log clearly shows was you. Silver seren C 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose whether it meets A7 is whether or not you think that "The magazine, which is published every other month and has a circulation of 61,000[1] and claims a readership of 300,000,[2][3] is targeted at professional business women." is an "explanation of the subject's significance". – xeno talk 20:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...yes? Any other article would have been AfD'ed than Speedy Deleted. It proposes a claim to notability, so Speedy Deletion doesn't apply. It could have been PROD'ed as well, I suppose, but certainly not speedied. Silver  seren C 21:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I don't really think that's a strong claim to significance... I suppose there's two possible paths here, JzG restores it and sends it to AFD, or he refuses and you go to DRV. – xeno talk 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess i'll wait for Jzg to reply here. Silver  seren C 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As JzG appears to be on a short break, I went ahead and restored it as a contested speedy deletion and procedurally filed an AFD: Articles for deletion/Women's Post. – xeno talk 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes a Court
Hello I noticed your comment on the BLPnoticeboardBLPnoticeboard and want to draw your attention to that page being reverted again by the user with the agenda. Would you be able to review it again? Berkinstock (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please reverse your closure of Articles for deletion/Slovaks in Hungary
This to me seems like an improper closure as, most importantly, you're not an uninvolved admin (reference your comments at ANI). Additionally, I also think it's been closed incredibly early with no clear consensus. An editor had just proposed stubifying it which if they had done so may have changes the outcome of the AfD. There seemed to be agreement that the topic was notable and I'd prefer stubfying to userfying as at least then we have an article. Dpmuk (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me think about that. No. You expressed agreement with userfying and everybody else thinks the article is too biased and too badly written to be in mainspace. What the hell is wrong with doing the obvious? Guy (Help!) 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to take it to WP:DRV as a clearly out of process close. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My view of process for process' sake begins with "F" and ends with "uck process". Guy (Help!) 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * DRV started Deletion review/Log/2010 May 17 as further discussion is obviously pointless. Dpmuk (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three hours is most certainly not long enough for an article to be up. You should have let it run longer than that. And i'm concerned about the comment from Dpmuk about you being involved in the article. Your responses seem to insinuate such, which means you should not have been the closing admin. Silver  seren C 03:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, I think. There is broad agreement that the article fails core policy by a wide margin, nothing has been deleted, the article has simply been moved somewhere it does not degrade the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Laying Low But Counting
Doing the math and finding all the links, I have counted seven separate ANI notices about the user you recently blocked. I'm prepared to do a RFC/User if you think that would do any good and/or if other users would endorse it. In the meantime, I'm just laying low with all of this, as I'm on the radar again. Might be best just to walk away from the "whole bloody mess" as you people in England say. Let me know if you think this should go any further. There is still hope for the user, I feel. Best from the Colonies. -OberRanks (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive box
You might want to fix your archive box a bit; it doesn't list archives after 2009 (when you 'show' it).  Chzz  ►  07:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's supposed to be automagic, isn't it? Oh well. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Harbinder Singh Rana
The articles do not exist because he was found guilty, what context can there to the crimes? There are not other articles stating anything different, as what is reported is exactly what happended. He is a notable person, talking for the Sikhs in the UK, as this page testifies: http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Harbinder_Singh_Rana
 * , unsourced negative WP:BLP, deleted twice by two different admins for exactly the same reason. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Message from the Dark Lord

 * They seem to think that if they could only get rid of you the scientific consensus would miraculously change. It won't, of course, but they might have slightly more success in their efforts to change Wikipedia to reflect the world as they wish it to be rather than as it is. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks in Hungary
I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AKA "ten reasons why I am right even though nobody agrees with the outcome I was trying to achieve". My advice to you is very simple: forget misguided notions of "process" and focus on what matters: does this content serve the goal of building a reliable, neutral reference? If the answer is no then you should simply let it be. If you have a better idea than userfying then you were free to state it, there is pretty clear consensus that leaving the crap in mainspace was not better than that. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that was in no way the purpose of what I wrote.  I said I was looking for both good and bad feedback.  Obviously in describing why I've done what done I've given my reasons but it wasn't intended to be "I'm right and here's why" but rather "here's my reasoning, am I right or wrong and if so where".  As an admin I'm surprised you didn't assume good faith and assume that I genuinely was looking for feedback rather than trying to justify myself.  Dpmuk (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Too much process. I told you what I think, I believe you can probably understand my view even if you don't agree. I don't have any desire to start nitpicking, I am an intuitive not a logical thinker and that probably explains all of the tension between our two positions. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, to be fair I've understood your point of view for a long time - I think we hold very opposed views but as long as we are both willing to accept that we have different views and that we disagree with each other that shouldn't pose a problem. I mainly notified you as I didn't want to be accused of selectively choosing who I asked to comment so I went for everyone that had commented on either ANI thread, the Afd, or the DRV - I wasn't expecting replies from everyone.  I am most definitely a logical thinker and if I'm honest I think I like process too much but it's hard to change habits that have formed over many, many years.  I recently posted at ANI that I thought your close of the AfD was "an atrocious abuse of process".  I hope you don't take that the wrong way as I can understand why you did it even if I very strongly disagree with it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have replied to your comment an ANI. In short I didn't mean it that way, didn't think people would make the connection you did and I have now refactored. Dpmuk (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of User Genesis 274
I care. And the person you blocked cares. I contacted you about this thinking you would care. But, as evidenced by your article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, your attitude doesn't reflect care at all. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppet or sockpuppet, all treated the same. It's a long-established practice endorsed by the arbitration committee. If you want to invoke the hatchet job that write about me then you should probably first check to see what kind of guy he is - the kind who would taunt someone about the recent death of their sister, for example. You prefer that kind of "caring"? Guy (Help!) 09:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock on hold: User talk:Pookzta
Was thinking about letting this one give it another try, they have promised to avoid the areas where they have had previous problems. I have endeavored to make it clear to them that any return to their previous behavior will lead to a rapid re-block. Checking with you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if accompanied by a topic ban and zero tolerance probation. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of topic bans, I was hoping we could simply reach a voluntary agreement with him, but alas that seems unlikely given his reply to your remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just mine, every reply from him has been along the lines of "this is true, you must allow me to continue saying it as loud and as long as I like". That was what got him blocked in the first place. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your self destruction of the Ultimate Warrior article
Again, I don't see what complaints you have been addressing. Where are they?

I can see you have a huge ego, but I will still tell you very bluntly : being an administrator doesn't allow you to bully others. You have no right to remove the page because you think the source is not up to par or you think the info is challengeable. I saw a few of the legal actions covered on his blog, which lead me to believe you have never read much about the subject. I will ask for a nonbiased administrator to step in if you continue to abuse wikipedia policies. -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The complaint is, which means you can't see it but other OTRS volunteers can, and can verify its existence and substance easily enough. I am in a very mellow mood today, so you are lucky. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you making threats? Wikipedia is not run by fear, and if you think your administrator persona makes you the subject of fear, I am telling you right now that is an abuse of power.


 * That being said, I would like to know more about this complaint ticket you cited. I clicked on the link and I am not getting anything. I don't know what an OTRS volunteer is either. Is this a situation where someone anonymously reported an article because they weren't happy with how it was referenced? How come there's nothing on the talk page about the references? Just help me out here. I've never heard of this happening before. Is this a new thing?-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Suffice it to say that any material in a biography that is likely to be challenged should be rigorously sourced to reliable independent sources. No blogs, no forums, no J. Random Website. Yes? Guy (Help!) 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So if i'm able to source the information that was removed, we're able to ignore the complaint? I think that's how it works, right? Silver  seren C 22:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can source every single word to a peerlessly reliable place, yes. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Artel Kayàru
Could you please explain how that article was unambiguous advertising or promotion? Aditya Ex Machina 11:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Information received it was largely written by his PR. It also contained disinformation from one of the editors who was not him but pretended to be. It was a mess. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A little transparency would be appreciated. Information was received? One of the editors? Aditya Ex Machina  11:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was email. I can't give more information without violating privacy. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is irritating. That article was watchlisted by quite a few people. If you had a problem with it you could have discussed it on the talk page. It doesn't qualify as G11 either. There was nothing so pressing about the article that it just had to be deleted. Judging by the other posts on your talk page other people have had problems with your actions too. I'm in no mood for an argument right now, so I'm going to drop this here. Good day. (striking) Aditya Ex Machina 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not good at nuanced when I'm told that someone's PR has been building up the article and some kid has been adding disinformation. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bachir Attar
Hi, thanks for intervening in the Bachir Attar / User:Bachir Attar incident. However, I don't think we can userfy this page: Attar is a notable subject; the problem is that he (or someone claiming to be him) is working on his own article. Furthermore, other editors have worked on the article and so I think we could run into licensing issues if we move everyone's edits to one individual's user space, and we also lose their contributions if we allow the Attar article to start over from scratch. I think we need to move it back to the article space but revert to an earlier version (e.g. May 19) prior to User:Bachir Attar's involvement. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be right but if he is notable then it needs some reliable independent non-trivial sources. The only independent source cited (that I can check, anyway) is about a whole family of musicians, and mentions this one only as a namecheck, it does not establish notability. I userfied it to avoid biting the guy unnecessarily. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Guy, got a question
Hi, Guy! I have a question regarding this AN posting. I see that you have done some research and found the real-world identity of Msmayer. I don't mean to sound accusatory, but doesn't this violate WP:OUTING? Just thought I'd ask you in case I don't understand properly (which is entirely possible!). Thanks, Guy! :) Basket of Puppies  02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker asked the same. It seemed obvious to me, but apparently not to others. I'm not going to press it for obvious reasons. Incidentally, had I simply stumbled upon the article I would have googled for the article name plus the obvious surname, which would have revealed the COI pretty quickly. This is something I routinely do for all sorts of articles, if the text looks promotional or the article appears to be a monographh. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "outing" was a perfectly reasonable ferreting-out of a conflict of interest in editing. The relevant question on a goose/gander basis, though, is why others have been blocked, banned, and demonized for similarly exposing conflicts of interest when the subjects thereof happened to be in favor with the dominant clique of administrators. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I am confused by WP:OUTING where it says "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." (Emphasis mine). I didn't see where this person put their info on Wikipedia. COI or not, I am uneasy with it. Basket of Puppies  16:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See the recent Gibraltar case. These things need to be handled with care, obviously with more care than I took. I have some thoughts on how to handle this better in future, but I think there might be merit in pondering the ways of handling googlable but not on-wiki admitted COIs. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in here but this is something I've pondered about in the past. Personally, I think if a person is using their real name as their username and edits articles that makes it even more obvious who they are, they've identified themselves on Wikipedia.  I could get more in depth about the issue but seeing as how I'm volunteering my opinion to people who didn't ask for it, I'll bow out now.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 01:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. I suspect the thing to do is to present the facts as found and let people draw their own conclusions. I don't think the prohibition on outing should include a proscription on Googling to see if there's a COI, especially when the names come up in hundreds of Google hits. In the main this is not a problem because we quietly deal with the users or they acknowledge the link themselves. In this case there seemed to me to be a greater urgency due to defamatory edits and a rather specific complaint. I also think there is a difference between drawing a link between an SPA and the articles it edits, and offering money to anyone who can dig out the real-world identity of $HATED_ADMIN, which is the kind of thing that led to the "no outing" rule in the first place. There have been several people who have sought to hide a COI by invoking this, one of whom made it to the arbitration committee before being found out.It is more ambiguous than we would all like it to be. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Abhinawamail
Hey Guy. User talk:Abhinawamail has been creating an article about himself. From what I can tell, he's created it twice under two different but similar titles and has been removing the db tag. I've just warned him but I'm not sure that he understand that problem. Would you mind helping out if this continues? Ol Yeller '''Talktome 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I recommend nn-userfy in such cases, it often makes the point in a less bitey way. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. I wasn't even aware it existed.  Thanks Guy.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 22:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could do with being more widely advertised I think, I created it some time back and it's one of the few things I've done here of which I am genuinely proud. I use it fairly often in cases like this - most of these noobs are happy enough with a user page on "teh Wikipedias" because they don't know enough to understand the difference. By the time they do we can either have a reasonable discussion or start paying out WP:ROPE. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Input on AKOO Clothing Line
Hey Guy. An article I came across a little while back was in bad shape so I cleaned it up, added two refs, and went on my merry way. Yesterday, the article was deleted as an A7. I didn't remember the article very well but I know that I never leave an article on my watchlist if it's a CSD (I'd get it deleted or fix it myself). I User_talk:Athaenara to userfy and she did at the link in the title. I was surprised to find that it was speedied. The refs are fairly weak in realiability but there none the less so I added a few more for good measure. Before I possibly start any kind of issues with an admin, am I missing something? I could see the article being taken to AfD but not CSD. What do you think? Ol Yeller '''Talktome 01:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. The contents of the article was: "A.K.O.O. is a clothing line founded by T.I. and Jason Geter, both co-founders of Atlanta-based recording label Grand Hustle Entertainment". Some user thought that this did not amount to a claim of notability (defensible, I'd say) and tagged it as such, and an admin came along and nuked it. Any one-sentence article is liable to suffer that fate, unless the one sentence establishes why we should care. The ref titles hint at something interesting but this is not in the article.  I think it should be possible to expand it past the point of no return. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mariusz Adamski and its AfD
Hello, I am a Page Patroller and participate regularly in AfDs. Re: Mariusz Adamski, I'd recommend you withdraw the WP:AFD nom. I have begun editting the article and will demonstrate his notability. You can save yourself a debate that will become a Speedy Keep. I have already provided a lede hook that will be worthy of a DYK nomination. You can see my work with DYKs at this User:Morenooso/DYK tracker page of mine. Cheers. moreno oso (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While morenooso pre-empted this one, the article has now been updated to include numerous third-party references to this individual, and your original concern about the article has been addressed. I have suggested that the article be speedily kept, and recommend that you withdraw the AfD nomination. Regards,  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, I like quirky articles, provided they are well sourced as this one now is. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Roboform
I'm going through the unblock-un request of User:Sibersystems when I noticed the WP:REFUND request of Roboform, which you deleted per G11. I think if you get rid of that second paragraph about its cost and how to buy, it could avoid G11; the sources relevant for notability seem to be there. Hence, it could probably be restored. What do you think? –MuZemike 20:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No real opinion, other than that there are an awful lot of SPAs in the edit history. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you wouldn't mind if we restored it? I, too, am not seeing the fundamental advertising in the article.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed is good, you can do whatever you feel is appropriate. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi JzG! Speaking of WP:REFUND, could I bring your attention for a second to Requests for undeletion (if it has not yet been handled)?  Take care,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Isang Lakas Page
im requesting for a semi-protection immediately as long as the page concerned has the right information in it, as it was some people try to vandalize the page, some information like the characters, some character there are not-yet sure/approve by the network/station/rival station.. i cite three examples of character not-yet approve and currently license to its rival station GMA 7, they are as follows, Captain Barbell, Dyesebel, & Darna, all characters are "still" license to its mother station GMA 7. im requesting that the revisions made by MsGanda & Basilicofresco are the only True revisons, on the page and are only the true information must be on that Page... by the way the Isang Lakas page are not-yet broadcasted because of scheduling problems... thanks... & Godspeed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Crawler X (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of VLSI Solution
Dear JzG, You chose to delete the article stub about VLSI Solution, even though the speedy deletion was contested. Would you like to comment what should be done to keep the article? Panu-Kristian Poiksalo (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About the deletion: Hmmh, Maybe you should still think about keeping this one. It's after all quite an important company. First of all, it's quite an old company (30 years), so this is not an advertisement for some start-up. It was one of the first to develop MP3 decoders and it's about the only one still left that sells those. It was the first to make a chip that specifically does ogg vorbis decoding and the first chip to do ogg encoding. It's had quite a role in the development of the PC audio cards in the 1990's, though behind the scenes. And today, there are not so many companies that has their own processing architectures, compilers, audio, RF and all. After all, you do have an article about ARM too, don't you...? Panu-Kristian Poiksalo (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your assertion of importance was not backed by content in the article. I will userfy it if you want to try adding sources demonstrating significance. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the answer. I might like to write a better article, though it seems that a lot more energy would be required. It may not be for some time, so I am not sure if userfication would be helpful in this case. Panu-Kristian Poiksalo (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to keep the BBC happy!
Hi JzG. I started an entry for Pegasus Bridge (band). It was in response to a request from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) so that they can link this to their (numerous) music pages. I don't have an issue with the normal automatic deletion criteria (or that my entry wasn't an award winner), but as a new user, I'd appreciate some kind of steer how I can comply with a command from the mighty British Broadcasting Corporation. They were of the opinion that this band is noteworthy because of the numerous articles about them.

NormanHowick 15:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NormanHowick (talk • contribs)
 * I think it would have been from someone in the BBC's community pages not from the BBC themselves, they have no need of Wikipedia to create content advertising specific bands. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They have a MySpace page. What for they need a Wikipedia article? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of DJ Surge-N
I just wanted to inform you that the above article which you speedily deleted is currently listed on AfD here. ialsoagree (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll close it. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary on Edward Bocking
Hi JzG, I noticed that on this edit to Edward Bocking, you used the summary "we don't need that, thanks all the same". This summary is almost exactly matching to a summary that one should not use, as stated in the policy Ownership of articles. In the section entitled "On revert", the third example of what not to put as an edit summary is "We don't need this. Thanks anyways." Your summary is a rephrasing of that. Please note that articles, once edited by other contributors, are not your sole intellectual property, and you are not the "boss" of the article just because you are the creator. Thank you for your edits; just watch what you say. :) -- Brandon 5485  23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively you could see WP:EL and look at the "links to avoid", which includes personal pages, which was what I removed. We (as in Wikipedia the body corporate) do not need links to editors' own Geocities pages. Oh, and you might notice that my edit history and logs do show a certain amount of experience with external link issues, among other things. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A question
So, I can see that you are a Douglas Adams fan. Now tell me: Are you enough of one to celebrate Towel Day? If if you aren't why ever not? :) I'm enough of a fan to actually get a quote from Mostly Harmless scheduled as the Motto of the day for May 25th. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey what's the problem with u? .. why you are nominating the articles "Karnataka State Film Awards" and "karnataka State Film Award for Best Actor" for deletion?. We have just created the article and we will surely improve later. For your reference we have given some website links in both the articles. I didn't understand your problem. You should give time to us to improve the article with every content. I don't know whether you know about karnataka and kannada films. Hope you understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannadakumara (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These are articles which establish nothing beyond the existence of the things, so far. You have entirely failed, in several attempts, to say anytihg beyond that. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Correa
Just a friendly note on the Jesus Correa deletion. I've userfied the article so the editor could improve it, but technically it shouldn't have been deleted as an A7, since an A7 had already been declined. Cheers! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  01:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The user is an SPA, of course. See Articles for deletion/Thomas L. Vaultonburg. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't say that I've ever seen creation by an SPA as a criteria under A7.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Mayou Trikerioti
Hi JzG, I noticed that you deleted this page again, but you may not have realised that it has been improved from last time and I don't think it meets the A7 criterion any longer, as I have managed to find some secondary sources for this individual and had begun adding them after removing the original unreferenced material introduced by the author. It may still be eligible for AfD until I can find and insert some more sources, but I don't think it is clear-cut enough to be speedily deleted anymore; please restore this page. Thanks.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  16:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It did seem to me still to meet A7, though no longer G11. You can have it back but I will AfD it. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To be honest at the moment I'm not sure whether I'll be supporting or arguing against the AfD, I'll have to look for some more references; I don't think A7 was valid any longer though. Thanks for restoring the article.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OCR-A font
I noticed that you removed several references to vendors of OCR-A fonts from this page, with no reason listed in the talk page and only "spam spam spam" as your comment. Would you care to expand on your reasons, in the OCR_A talk page? John Sauter (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They were not references as such, more commercial sites linked to look like references - WP:REFSPAM. This was a followup form a user (who appears to ber an SEO or marketeer) who had a significant number of consecutive edits all linking one of these sites. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the Network for Business Sustainability
Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the Network for Business Sustainability for deletion under G11 and A7. I don’t see how the page I created warrants unambiguous promotion. The Network for Business Sustainability is a publicly funded, non-profit organization. It connects an academic research community from around the world to business professionals interested in sustainability. The Network conducts and provides research on the various sustainability topics of interest to the business community and was founded by a professor, Dr. Tima Bansal who is widely quoted and respected on the subject. It has researchers from every university in Canada and quite a few from the U.S. and the rest of the world. Business sustainability is a topic of interest for me. This Canadian organization is one that is really trying to bring the topic to the forefront of business practice; based on all the articles I have read. Everything I said in the entry was factual not promotional. By this standard there are a lot of pages that warrant deletion but are still up and running for example Sustainable Business Network, oikos International, Continuing Studies Centre for Sustainability (CFS) to name a few. Now I think these organizations are great and they deserve a page of their own; I’m just saying that the Network for Business Sustainability does too. I was just hoping for an explanation as I would like to put up the page again as I believe it is of importance in Canada and your input would be very much appreciated.--Sunalis (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC) But it wasn't, I was stating facts! How different was it from the pages I stated above? Please explain that to me --Sunalis (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it was advertorial. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was "stating facts" in a way that was blatantly promotional. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)