User talk:JzG/Archive 54

Chelsea Kate Isaacs
I'm not completely aware of the history of this article but it appears that the article has been created in the past but was deleted per an AfD that was allegedly reported by Reuters. The article was then locked from recreation but has been since recreated with a lowercase middle and last name. I flagged the article for deletion as a copyvio (portions are close paraphrases from a copyrighted website). DGG declined the speedy as he believes that the copyvio can be removed and said he was sending it to AfD (I assume he meant that he thought I'd take it to AfD). It was at that point that I attempted to move the article, found it was locked, and found that the AfD had been cleared so I can't see what the arguments were regarding.

In short, I'm stuck with this article. The admins who were involved per the deletion log are now inactive and I don't want to start anything here that might put Wikipedia in a bad spot. My gut tells me that someone may be attempting to start something but I may be wrong. Any suggestions? Ol Yeller '''Talktome 18:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a long-term subject of astroturfing. Nuked now, anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Derny.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Derny.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Challenge
Hi, after you changed Challenge to point to a disambiguation page, there were 150+ article links that needed fixing. I went ahead and took care of them - about an hour's work - so you don't need to worry about the cleanup. In the future, though, please remember WP:FIXDABLINKS when you're redirecting to disambigs. Cheers, -- Ja Ga  talk 11:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that, I fired up AWB but it was not working and I got sidetracked. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. AWB can have its flaky moments. :) -- Ja Ga  talk 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Email
Just sent you an email. I've never used WP Emails before so let me know if you didn't get it. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An admin has recently deleted two edits from my talk page and altered one of my comments without any prompting from me. I have no idea what's going on right now. I'm going to step out and hopefully the situation will become more clear.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fred is Good People. Send him email if you prefer, I'm sure he will explain. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative A7 template
Hey. I seem to remember a while back either seeing you use another template or suggestion another template besides db-a7 that can be used to be a little more subtle/compassionate when marking a page for deletion. Occasionally, I'll run into a new page created in the memory of someone who has recently passed away and I hate slamming huge templates all over everything and telling someone that their recently deceased grandpappy isn't important to anyone. Do you remember what the template was or am I way off? Ol Yeller '''Talktome 18:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that, but I typically userfy obvious autobiographies and use nn-userfy to notify the user. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can always use deletebecause and put your own text in. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Idea
It occurred to me that revision delete might serve a good purpose for discussion at:

Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy

I stumbled upon this as my additions were reverted long with a revert at Lophophora - and noted you'd been involved in the situation on the talk page (though different pages) as well. If you think it sucks, that's fine just let us know why :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

More jajouka stuff
Refs being removed by Ip http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamed_Hamri&diff=prev&oldid=385550815 a User you banned I assume. Catapla (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read, the situation is not the same as usual
Would you please revisit your comments? We are not trying to relitigate this case or otherwise! If you look at the situation we are in now Nothing in what Iblis or myself said was remotely disruptive. This whole amendment happened because we asked for clarification regarding proper admin authority limits, we've since asked several times for proof showing we re-engaged in disruptive behavior in regards to this eith no results. George William Herbert got it into his head that we were being disruptive, we weren't asking for a overturn on sanctions accusing or the like. We made two comments that we didn't agree with the motion extending the sanctions. If any further evidence is required look at the comments by HeadBomb, and the others that usually advocate against "us". We do not agree about the course of action but I'm hoping if you look at the discussion this was based on I believe you will agree with Blackburn and the others. For the record my own involvement to this is gradually coming to an end. We do not agree on much but I do hope we can agree on this, if not I think that the comments by the others are clear proof progress is being made towards amicability and I hope it can extend here too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody in the world has enough time to deal with these constant attempts to relegislate the Speed of Light case. The usual suspects have never accepted the outcome, and the extension of the restrictions appears to have caused precisely the same issues of advocacy that were experienced previously; therefore the same remedy would apear to be appropriate. Obdurate refusal to accept a consensus decision is disruptive and a time sink for everyone else. Let them have a user sub-page where they rail against the unfairness of it all and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Likebox is permabanned of his own choice, David Tombe has done nothing in the recent cases involving Brews and Hell in a Bucket just commented on the outcome. Count Iblis's AN/I thread on this was perhaps ill advised but that's already over with. So I really don't think this is at all necessary now.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this is needed. The advocacy ban was needed a few months ago because of the constant appeal, re-appeal, wikilawyering, etc... Tombe hasn't said thing about a thing here, Likebox is indef banned, Ohare kept to the enforcement request and participate in the "discuss the motion" after the closure as asked some people some clarification (which is again fine and normal), and I don't see what Iblis did that kept pouring oil on the fire. Threads like this however, does pour oil on the fire. There was an AE, and some people were unhappy with the result, and discussed and protested, as is usual. IMO, there's no sign that the advocacy problem is resurfacing, so there is no need to "nip it in the bud" or whatever. In other words, what JohnBlackburne said. Close this thread and let's be done with it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wolf! Wolf! Guy (Help!) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was trying to extend a olive branch. I'm sorry you wouldn't consider talking about this rationally. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, you've been so irrational about it for so long that I can't really be bothered to spend the time. Sorry, that's just how it is. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a frank answer. That's all I need to know, I'll leave you be. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy, if you can't be bothered, you shouldn't place comments there, suggesting that you have seen disruption while in fact you haven't. If you want to guard Wikipedia against huge volumes of unproductive talk, this is where you need to focus on right now. Count Iblis (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Abd was topic-banned form cold fusion? Guy (Help!) 07:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic ban expired... Abd celebrated with 100 000 bytes of comment at talk:cold fusion which I raised with NYB. If you look at user talk:abd you'll see Rlevse has commented too.  EdChem (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Discogs
You never placed the AFD template on the article. Fixed this for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Twinkle sometimes breaks for me. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never seen it break that way. I've seen it tag the article then fail to create the discussion page, but never the other way around. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Brala [etc]"
In this couple of edits, I think you redirected somewhere other than where you intended to. That aside, I'd say a redirect isn't desirable, let alone necessary. There's little ranting, just a boneheaded refusal either to understand or to believe. And if this becomes worse, the user can simply be prevented from adding to it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I tend to let people cover their own pages with idiocy, if, as is usual, nobody other than the writer is likely to be interested. It makes it even easier for other admins to see what's up. Anyway, see here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC) The problem though is that if he were to come to his senses quickly (which I'll grant seems most unlikely), a "legal" way back in would require not merely the usual sincere mea culpa but also considerable ingenuity. And that gives ammunition to the argument that WP is some kind of citadel within which an administratudinal clique likes to make things difficult for the plebs. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He's at the unblock list now. Best thing, IME, is to remove as much as possible of the idiocy while leaving a clear trail for other admins should the issue recur, and then WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, my main concern here is not to rub his nose in it - one day he might grow up and be worth cultivating as a Wikipedian but right now he's just another WP:VSCA merchant. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been handled via the unblock list. He is defiant and unapologetic. The chances of an unblock are zero at this stage. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)