User talk:William Pietri/Archive 03

ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network
The list of programs has been re-introduced again... I have removed some POV from it, but I think that a list of program currently broadcasted by a TV station is not of much encyclopedic value (what's its relevance in 10 years?). I would not oppose to removing this list again, but maybe summarizing it would be a better action. What's your opinion? - Liberatore(T) 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I note a program list at ABC_Kids_(United_States), and that seems ok to me. I removed the KBN one partly because it's a long article for a relatively small topic, but mainly because I was too lazy to deal with cleaning up the massive POV. However, you've done an admirable job of that. If you think a summary would be a step forward, feel free to give it a go. --William Pietri 02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting!
Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you!  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice job
William, thanks for the nice job mediating Juan Cole. Very deftly done, imho. TheronJ 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so! Would that it were done; I'm sure there's a long way to go. But I appreciate the encouragement. --William Pietri 00:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I second that. Thanks.--CSTAR 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I third that -great job! --Armon 01:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note
You're welcome. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole
Yup, spacing and punctuation still needs fixing. The content is not being changed by me. - RoyBoy 800 17:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, William Pietri
Thanks William for the reminder on Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations. I made it a sub-article in Opposition to Opus Dei. Sorry I have been very busy. Thanks! Marax 08:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It's you I have to thank! It was kind of you to alert us and to remind me about it. Marax 06:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mail-order bride
Thanks for your comments on the talk page of Mail-order bride. Would you mind removing the section yourself, as you suggested? I am in a dispute with who originally added the section, and I've reverted several of his other edits in the past 24 hours. I don't want to violate 3RR. (You might want to work from one of my edits in the page's recent history. He's just changed the page again, and I'm keeping out of it now.) Thanks again. --The Famous Movie Director 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, the section has been taken out already...I can't keep up...

Do you know what I can do about edits like this, which is a change he's made several times now? The information he removes is correct and referenced, but if I keep restoring it I violate 3RR. Sorry to bother you--I just don't know what else to do. --The Famous Movie Director 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops! Sorry, I just noticed your comment here. I think the best thing is for people to try to come to consensus. I have been keeping an eye on the article, and I'll revert when I think it appropriate. My experience is that people eventually get tired of edit wars and discover the value of consensus, so don't be discouraged. --William Pietri 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think will tire of this. He views it as his personal mission.  I believe some administrative action against him is now necessary.  68.33.186.81 20:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've begun drafting a user RfC against, here. To make it into a stronger case when it is submitted to mediation, please help edit it and add evidence about the problem and how you've helped try to solve it. There has been little discussion between the editors involved in this dispute, so it's difficult for any one person to do it alone. I'd really appreciate your help--I hope one day we can get this article up to a much higher standard. --Grace 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to go to as far as an RfC, but I don't see a lot of alternative. I wish I had more time to try to engage him directly, as difficult editors can sometimes be brought around. But I'm pretty busy for the next few weeks. Perhaps you could make one more pitch on the talk page for discussion instead of an edit war? --William Pietri 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

02:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Hello William; I believe adding each and every story of a supposed mail order bride murder is garbage and politically motivated. If the deaths of 3 mail order brides over 10 years is significant, why are the murders of 14,000 women in Russia a year not? How about details of each and every case of fraud, or each and every case of a non mail order bride? And why are the demographics not significant? I ask you to fairly look at my version and the opponents and tell me who is being political here and putting in irrelevent information. Thank you


 * Hi, . Thanks for responding. If you disagree with an edit, say so on the talk page and then try to find some consensus.  Then make small edits that move the article in a direction everybody can agree on. My opinion on the demographics section is on the talk page; in short, I think it was original research. I think your other questions are ones you should discuss with the other folks who want to work on the article, while assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. I'm focused on civility and good behavior, and I believe your actions are contributing to an edit war that I want stopped. --William Pietri 03:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Choudhary Rahmat Ali
Hey, I left a reply to your comment on Talk:Choudhary Rahmat Ali. -  calum  08:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

butt rock
see my comments on the buttrock talkpage Spearhead 16:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Buttrock legit?
Your Post: To my surprise, it looks like Buttrock is a legitimate term. Could you check my reasoning and let me know if I'm being too generous? Thanks, --William Pietri 16:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC) My Response: I would tend to suggest an AfD, and let the community at large decide. I still think it's undeserving of an entry, but maybe others actually find it useful. --Alan 04:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
 * I just realized this already was AfD, so I posted a comment to the article's AfD page. Cheers! --Alan 04:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for investigation of User:UniverseToday
Hi William Pietri. You have been active in discussion with User:UniverseToday. I've discovered a systematic pattern of this activity, and posted a request for investigation of User:UniverseToday at Requests_for_investigation, if you're interested in taking a look. Thanks. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ wp:space ) 03:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hand on Robert Zubrin! - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ wp:space ) 05:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome; always glad to help out my fellow janitors. Thanks for the extensive and careful request for investigation. I thought he was just going through the usual newbie my-web-site-is-super-important phase, but his edit history is straining even my ability to assume good faith. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. --William Pietri 06:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, William Pietri. I have discussed the ongoing effort with this vandal recently with Petros471 here and added a blurb to Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse here. Thanks for your diligence with this. - Reaverdrop ( talk /nl/ w:s ) 12:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

''Hi, Petros. I'm one of the other editors keeping an eye on this guy, and I appreciate you blocking him. When I see him active again, what's the best place and method for me to bring it to an administrator's attention? Thanks, --William Pietri 14:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)''
 * The best place would either be my talk page, if you see I'm active (check my contribs), or WP:AIV. AIV is watched by a lot of admins, so you should get a fast response there, just the report brief with the main details. Petros471 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

GLF
William, noting your comments on the Gregory Lauder-Frost Talk Page, I think it worth pointing you to User:Sussexman's objective assessment of the complaints made. Looking at his Talk page I note that someone asked him to do that. User:Edchilvers does not fit into the civility category you refer to and has been vandalising several different pages (see Michael Keith Smith and Talk Page), firstly under his name, then without using it. It therefore seems a bit bizarre that someone as responsible as you should be giving him tacit support. The GLF page has already been reworked drastically and, frankly, is a good read if you're looking for a political biography. Like you, I too was just passing by. 81.131.108.75 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I will certainly take a look at the evaluation. However, User:Sussexman is a member of the same club as the biography subject, so I think calling his assessment objective is more generous than I'm inclined to be. Not to question his intentions at all, but it's very hard to be sufficiently dispassionate about things one claims as major parts of one's identity. As to support, It's not my intent to support any individual; I'm here only to make a better encyclopedia, and focus much more on substance than position or personality. --William Pietri 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought your having a go at Sussexman on GLF's Talk Page unfair. I have looked at everything he has said and he has been careful and fair in my view. Barristers frequently represent murderers but they remain impartial. Chilvers came in out of nowhere with his advertised campaign against Michael Keith Smith and associates and I am stunned that Wikipedians have gone in wholesale to support this fellow.81.131.73.192 19:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me try again. My intention isn't to "have a go" at anybody. I'm here to make an encyclopedia and am not aiming to support or defend individuals; instead, I try to support useful behaviors and explain how Wikipedia works. Speaking of which, I encourage yo uto create an account; I'm not sure if I'm dealing with one person here or two. Thanks, --William Pietri 20:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. To the best of my knowledge I'm one person. How will giving myself a funny name (you are one of the few who actually operates under a proper name) identify me? I have been doing the rounds this afternoon following all the various messages posted in this dispute and it appears that even those who are 'identified' are accused of being one or more people and are actually being told they cannot hold similar interests without being so! I read you notes on the Nomination for Deletion page. I do disagree because of the deliberate attacks on this biography almost since its inception. I also think that it could be tidied up because I find that some parts have to be read with regard to the Monday Club article (i.e: the mention of GLF going to an Ian Smith dinner with Eleanor Dodd. I agree this loos odd, until we discover that she was for about 10 years editor of the Club's glossy magazine, Monday World. I am unable to locate another biography on Wiki so well-sources and still they call for more! People who are not British will not understand the relevance of the Monday Club and, therefore, of Lauder-Frost. People in Britain who oppose it and him (and their articles) will be doing so for purely political reasons, however much they attempt to disguise their reasons. 81.131.91.205 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What I have here is three different comments with three different signatures. I'm going to presume that it's the same person, rather than three different anonymous editors interested in the same topic. On Wikipedia it is considered polite to register so one's contributions can be tracked as a body of work. If you'd like to register under your real name, I obviously think that's even better. I agree that the Monday Club is notable, but notability is not transitive; see WP:BAND as an example. As to the alleged "deliberate attacks" I haven't yet seen evidence for them, and the main thing that is convicing me to delete the article is the itself. Unless you're suggesting that a mysterious liberal cabal is responsible for adding all the fluff and hiding whatever it is that actually makes him notable? Thanks, --William Pietri 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Linkspam
Thanks for the kind words. I kind of messed that one up, though. He was responding to each one of my warnings through e-mail, and I didn't have the client up. I think he might actually be a good contibutor eventually; just a rocky start. :) I see you got a mop on that Universe Today spillage - good work!  Kuru  talk  23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lauder-Frost appeal
He lost (though his supporters have claimed otherwise). See Homey 18:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As sources go, they don't come a lot more reliable than the London Gazette. It is the official publication of record for honours, for one thing... Just zis Guy you know? 18:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very, very interesting. Thanks both of you for the info. I admire their dedication in protecting a friend, and I understand and appreciate the spirit behind the UK law that may or may not apply to UK editors. But referring to two years in jail (plus presumably the end of one's professional life as an accountant) as "personal troubles" strikes me as so far from the facts as to mislead our readers. --William Pietri 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You're all wrong, I'm afraid. Entirely personal matters of 14 years ago, long dealt with, are protected. It is a pity that people across the Atlantic think that they know everything, and can sit back and do what they like, immune from prosecution. Sussexman 12:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Up to a point, Lord Copper. They are protected in the sense that they need not be delcared in job applications, and may not be used to discriminate against an applicant, but they are still a matter of public record and may safely be mentioned in biographies. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The matter involved his employer (the government), the courts, and a variety of newspapers. Moreover, it caused him to resign at what appears to be the height of his intentionally very public political career. All of this takes it out of the realm of "entirely personal". I of course don't think I know everthing, and ask you to ease up on the insults. If there's something you feel like I should know, by all means bring it to my attention.

The way you are suggesting to run a country is another interesting way to go about it, and if you folks like it I encourage you to keep it up. If, like the Chinese, you feel your citizens can't handle the information that a free press in other countries generates, there are a variety of solutions, both legislative and technical, you can pursue. But as a US citizen writing for a US publication, I'll continue to follow US law and the journalistic spirit that goes with it, and am honestly puzzled that you would expect me to do something different. --William Pietri 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

XPW Bleeding Was Only Half the Job
William, thanks for the heads up. You have the right to put it up for afD whenever you want to so I appreciate your giving me the chance to make sure it is how I want it to be and asking me if I am ready for it to be nominated. Before you nominate I would appreciate if you could respond to my argument on the talk page as it has not yet been achknowledged. My contention is that it meets WP:WEB as ObsessedWithWrestling.com - one of the sites the retrospective is printed on - has received mainstream coverage. I explain the argument more clearly on the talk page of "Bleeding was only half the job," so please check there and let me know what you think. As best as I can see, the entry entirely meets Wikipedia's criteria for WP:WEB. Thanks.JB196 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, JB. In my opinion that's a little too tenuous. The example they give is a podcast that's picked up by the Guardian newspaper. ObesssedWithWrestling.com doesn't meet WP:WEB on its own, having an Alexa rank below 15,000, so them printing your articles doesn't seem notable. But I don't know the field, so I want to bring the discussion to a wider audience; that's what AfD is for. Hope that helps, --William Pietri 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This so called 'book in progress' entry is nothing but a vanity piece since the author of the article is also the author of said 'book in prgress' it needs to be deleted. TruthCrusader 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * William, thanks for the response. I am unclear - When you say, "The example they give" what are you referring to (by "they," I mean). Also, your mention of OWW's "Alexa rank" sparks my interest; is there some sort of standard as far as Wikipedia goes in regards to what Alexa ranks make a web site considered "notable" (by Wikipedia standards). As far as TruthCrusader's nonsense, he is so far off the scope of Wikipedia policy it's not even worth bothering to post any sort of full response to his claims. Thanks in advance.JB196 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the example I give is from WP:WEB explaining the "picked up" bit. I see self-published articles that are then published on a relatively obscure website as not quite in the same league. For a while we were using Alexa Rank of 5000 or more as a criterion in judging notability; I'm not sure if the number is there anymore, but if you follow AfD the rank is often mentioned to give a sense of use. Although TruthCrusader's tone and buttinsky approach are both regrettable in his failure to respect WP:AGF and WP:BITE, he's not far off on the correct policy. See, for example, WP:CSD, criterion A7. --William Pietri 13:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting an edit (mine)
I notice that you reverted my editing on "Mail Order Bride". I consider highly-personal remarks irrelevant, which explains the effort at deletion. Personal exposures of sex life, having seen a celebrity, having visited a place, or of gossip ordinarily seem tantamount to vandalism. It's more in the "So what?" category than offense. Uniqueness of an experience might be meritorious, so something less offensive than a crude exposure of personal sex life, as "I visited the Louvre" or "I attended the first Super Bowl" should be recognized as a form of vandalism. A rarer personal achievement as "I climbed Mount Everest" or an experience far rarer now that might have been commonplace at another time might also be relevant. A Russian centenarian who remembers events of the Bolshevik Revolution from first-hand experience and can relate how Nicholas II or Vladimir Lenin, or can corroborate the veracity of Doctor Zhivago -- book, movie, or opera (should an opera ever be made of the book) might have a rich contribution to make because such contributions are now rare and precious as they might not have been twenty years ago.

I'm no prude on sexuality; I recognize sexuality in its many forms as inherent in human nature. I'm 51 and I have seen it all and have heard it all. Little shocks me anymore, and the passage that I deleted offended me more for its banality than for its moral content. To state that X District of Y City is full of prostitutes is of potential interest to a reader, whether he wishes to visit X District or avoid it having been warned. To state that one visited X District in Y City and either fornicated extensively or found it offensive is either a banality or a violation of NPOV. Sex might qualify if one has a unique perspective as a certifiable expert, whatever might constitute an expert.--Paul from Michigan 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lauder-Frost
A barnstar for you.

Can it really be true that you are not an administrator? Would you accept my nomination to rectify this appalling omission? Just zis Guy you know? 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very kind. I'm not sure that I'm ready yet; I want to build a couple of full articles before I consider that. To do that I'll have to stop sticking my beak into other peoples' arguments, so it may be a few months. Many thanks, though; it's nice to be appreciated. --William Pietri 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not stop sticking your beak in. Your talent for drowning invective with cold fact and cool reason is valued. Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. Will do. I really only meant that I would have to reduce beak-stickery enough that I have time for actual writing. Thanks for saying so. --William Pietri 15:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Draft RfC on
I have duly responded. Thanks for notifying me. -- Evanx  (tag?) 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stubbifying
I really wish I were able to explain exactly what led me to take the action that I have. I hope you will understand that I am in contact with Brad Patrick and the office regarding this particular article and the inquiry regarding it, and that I very much appreciate your assumption of good faith. - Amgine 15:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I've just returned from holidays. I will check into the status of this shortly. - Amgine 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Brad is currently not available to me; he's on another trip attempting to raise support for the Foundation. I will get this information as soon as it is available to me. - Amgine 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate you looking into it. William Pietri 00:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC on
Hi William. Having finished my exams for the semester, I finally got around to submitting the RfC against User:. Sorry it took so long. The page is at Requests_for_comment/. Please help by signing the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section, since you were one of those who tried and failed to resolve the dispute. (I know you signed the draft version, but I figured you should sign the final submission so it will have the current time on it.) You can also add other evidence if you want to. Thanks! --Grace 23:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, Grace! Thanks for doing that; I have signed. I hope your exams went well! --William Pietri 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bleeding Was Only Half the Job
OK, thanks for the heads up, William.JB196 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey William. Want to follow up about afdnewbies tag. The reason why I am kinda uncomfortable with it being there is the "If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote." sentence. That makes it look like I (being hte author) am inviting people I know to come post for it to stay which is not the case. I am fine with what the rest of the template says but that part of it bugs me; is there a way we can remove that sentence from it? The same goes for the "The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry." That indicates that there is "ballot-stuffing" going on which is not the case.....thanks for considering.-JB196JB196 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anybody is doing any ballot stuffing, but there are an unusual amount of newbies voting on this; compare it against other AfDs and you'll see what I mean. If there is another newbie comment requiring cleanup, I'll be putting the tag back. Given that most of the numeric IPs are for deletion, I don't think anybody will suspect you of stuffing the ballot box against yourself, so I wouldn't sweat it. If you do, feel free to explain in another comment on that page. --William Pietri 01:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * William, I originally posted this at the afD page but decided to move it to your user page:


 * "The consensus is pretty clearly that this material doesn't belong in Wikipedia"

This is where we disagree. afD applies to an article in question. It doesn't apply to other mentions of the title of said article (in this case, the "Bleeding Was Only Half the Job" retrospective) in other articles on Wikipedia. If that was the case and it did apply to other aticles (it doesn't), then Nick Mondo - one of the most famous hardcore wrestlers in East Coast wrestling history - would not allowed to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia for the simple reason that his article was deleted (Sick Nick Mondo). Some of Mondo's stunts (i.e. his near-death experiences at Tournament of Death 1 and 2) are notable enough among the hardcore wrestling community that they should be included on Wikipedia in other articles (the Tournament of Death article, even though Nick Mondo himself might not necessarily be deserving of his own Wikipedia entry.

The concensus is NOT that this material doesn't belong in Wikipedia; the concensus is that the material doesn't need its own entry. You are misapplying the purpose of the afD concept; if a "deletion" verdict meant that the subject could not be mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, then the "merge" option which is specified clearly as one of the options at WP:AFD would not exist...and it cleary does exist as it is elucidated upon at that link.

Then comes the question of whether the retrospective is relevent enough to XPW to be included in the article. I belive very strongly that it is. To argue that a retrospective about a wrestling league which features testimony from the wrestlers and management itself doesn't deserve a spot in a section called "The Memory Remains" is to entirely negate the purpose of said section ("The Memory Remains"). There is a very good reason that that section was included in the article in the first place - that reason is to demonstrate that while XPW is no longer operational, it is still a very talked-about subject among Internet wrestling fans. A retrospecitve focusing on the history of the organization in question (XPW) is *entirely relevent* enough to be included in "The Memory Remains" section.JB196 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: William, I just realized that to the best of my knowledge you are not a very big wrestling fan and took this article under concern for other reasons, so I apologize if my references to Nick Mondo and T.O.D. are confusing to you; I was trying to draw a parallel which I think I did draw, although it may be confusing for people not familiar with Nick Mondo to follow. RegardsJB196 16:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The merge option does indeed exist. Nobody has so far recommended it for "Bleeding Is Only Half the Job". I understand you believe the material should be included. However, as per WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO, you should not be editing Wikipedia articles in ways that promote yourself or your projects. We shouldn't edit articles where we hav strong biases, and we are all biased in favor of our own projects; otherwise we wouldn't do them. If your efforts are important to the history of wrestling (which is different than covering important things in the history of wrestling) then uninvolved parties will notice this and add the material. William Pietri 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem?
William, I noticed you wrote on the XPW talk page "I understand you find his behavior provocative" and then at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:168.127.0.51, you wrote "even when dealing with people you find difficult." I understand that the second statement was more in reference to 168.127.0.51's opinion of me (meaning that he finds me difficult to deal with), but I want to make sure that you and I are still on the same page as civil Wikipedians, with the exception of our obvious disagreement about this particular XPW content on Wikipedia. I am hoping YOU don't see "[my] behavior [to be] provocative" as I have done everything in my power to facilitiate a civil discussion about this disagreement. Thanks in advance.JB196 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alas, I also see your behavior as provocative, although I am so far relatively unprovoked. I believe the material under discussion doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and that as the author of both the pargraphs in question and the manuscript described, you are unavoidably biased in its favor. That's fine, but repeatedly re-adding the material in the face of what seems to be strong consensus on both the talk page and the AfD is the part that is provoking others to frothing. I still think there are a number of things you could do to facilitate a civil discussion, like not reverting until a consensus to keep the material is achieved, and directly addressing expressed concerns with WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. We'll see how the third opinion turns out, though; maybe I'm just missing something. William Pietri 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * William, thanks for the quick response. To clarify, I am NOT "the author of both the pargraphs in question." Parsonburg did write it. Sure I have edited it since then, but that does not change the fact that he - a respected Wikipedia user - was the VERY first editor to include ANY mention whatsoever of "Bleeding Was Only Half the Job" in the XPW article. With all due respect (and the appreciation for your willingness to hold off on afDing the separate Bleeding Was Only Half the Job article until I had had a chance to edit it as best I could to meet Wikipedia standards), I also very much disagree with your statement that there was a "strong consensus on both the talk page." Is it not true that 90+% of those users who stated their opinion on the XPW talk page have engaged in multiple acts of not just normal vandalism but in most cases *blatant* vandalism (as indicated by their respective Contributions pages)? I feel like these and other issues which I have brought up are very important to the matter but have not been addressed sufficiently (or in some cases at all). Thanks much in advance.JB196 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * JB, you are the one who added the first mention of your manuscript: . Parsonsburg, with less than 150 edits, is somebody I'd be more likely to call "new" than "respected", but maybe I'm just more stingy with my adjectives. Regardless, although he did edit it twice, the sentence he contributed no longer remains in the text. That's good, as it fails both WP:WEASEL and WP:NOT a crystal ball. The text you mention was first added by an anonymous editor . So I agree that you didn't add it the first time; sorry about that. However, you've added it back enough times that you should be willing to take full responsibility for it. I also agree that some of the contributors have behaved badly, and so it's reasonable to weigh that along with their comments. But many of the concerns they bring up were the same ones mentioned later by editors and administrators in the AfD. And those concerns still stand unaddressed as far as I can tell. William Pietri 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam
Look at the Talk page of the user in question. She has made no edits to the body of the articles, and her sole Wikipedia activity has been massively adding links. She's already been warned repeatedly for spam. CRCulver 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear William Pietri and Crculver,

After being admonished for posting many links, it was suggested to me that I find articles from several sources to post on an author's entry. This I took as a constructive suggestion and attempted to comply. Please assume good faith and recognize that I am not trying to disregard an editorial policy, but learning how to participate through trial and error and advice. Thanks, CNicol 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)CNicol

If a user adds only external links and doesn't actually contribute to the articles themselves, that's rightly suspicious. Furthermore, I'd argue that the links she's been adding recently, while not to her own personal website, are nonetheless not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a link directory. CRCulver 01:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Clyde Edgerton
Hi. I noticed your comment on the talk page for Clyde Edgerton and tried to add a bit of what you suggest. I do see how it adds some 'meat'. I also added a few bits and pieces. Just letting you know.-Bri 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing bloghlf
William

Why are you removing this site? If you look at other sites in Wiki's Herbalife page, they are attacking the company with outdated information. They are okay, but sites that track the current goings on of the company are being removed - this does not make sense. BlogHLF is a site that follows the company, there is no commercial gain for Herbalife as they are not related to me.

Please email me if you wish to discuss, otherwise please don't remove this link.

Thanks,

Hi. To make sure you see it, I've replied on Your talk page. William Pietri 05:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for keeping an eye out for POV edits to Longview Baptist Temple. --DDerby- (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Euchre
[Large block copy-pasted from elsewhere by [[User:ClairSamoht|ClairSamoht]] removed.]

Hi, Clair. Was it really necessary to post a thousand words of copy-pasted heated argument here on my talk page? If you are worried about something being deleted, you can always link to a specific version or a specific changeset. In fact, if you would do that here, I'd be much obliged. Thanks, William Pietri 15:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Murray Ball
Are you sure the info you deleted from Murray Ball came from an external site, and that the external site's content didn't come from the Wikipedia article? Moriori 08:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reasonably so. It doesn't appear in the page history that I saw, and you can see it via the wayback machine as early as 2001. Hope that helps. William Pietri 08:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay - how is a consensus made?
Reading up on the AfD process, it seems that after 5 days of debate, it will be either gotten rid of or kept, based on the consensus. However, how is a consensus made? Thanks much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deltajuliet (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 September 2006 UTC.

You can see more at WP:CON, but the basic notion is that we all discuss it and try to come to agreement. Generally with AfDs the community consensus is pretty clear. When it isn't, the closing admin has some latitude, but generally just marks it as "no consensus" meaning that no action is taken for now. The interesting part to me is that because we jointly write the rules, it's not just a question of whether an article meets paragraph 73, section 18 of the such-and-such rule. From what I've seen, the topic-specific AfDs often are condensed out of AfD discussions. Hope that helps, William Pietri 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

-deltajuliet

Edit summaries

 * I'll keep that in mind, but give me time to get used to it. I normally use the keyboard as much as I can while using the computer, and am used to simply hitting TAB four times to get to the Save Page button. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your kind comments and the barnstar - I appreciate it ! =) Bwithh 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Most welcome! William Pietri 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you also
be removing the personal atttack made by Arthur rubins, when they labelled me a sock puppet? --Pussy Galore 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * PG, unfortunately, calling attention to suspected socks in good faith doesn't seem to be a personal attack. (See generally WP:SOCK) (But don't run around accusing everyone of being socks themselves, or you'll get yourself spanked for violating WP:POINT!!!).  I am not crazy about it, but I don't think it's nearly as offensive as calling someone a rapist, for example.  Even more confusingly, there isn't actually any rule against using socks, as long as you don't vote twice on the same issue or do one of a few other forbidden things.  My advice would be to blow the whole issue off -- your comment counts as much as anyone else's, whether or not someone called you a sock.  Just explain that you're not a sock and go back to making your edits -- what do you care what some other random editor sitting in his basement (like me) thinks?  TheronJ 20:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it was intended as a personal attack, but rather as sharing a concern he had with the community. If you have similar reason to believe that he's a pedophile and are merely making a statement of fact, then that also wouldn't have been a personal attack. Let me know if I misunderstood. So no, I plan to leave his comment as it stands. Thanks, William Pietri 20:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On what basis do you beleieve the concern is in good faith? If I am a sock puppet, who is my master? --Pussy Galore 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly, I assume it's in good faith because I assume good faith. Also, unluckily for you, you happen to fit the profile of a sockpuppet (a recently created account with an unusually good knowledge of Wikipedia and an interest in esoteric corners of the encyclopedia like AFD).  Ultimately, though, it just doesn't matter if someone calls you a "suspected sockpuppet," because (1) your comment still counts as much as anyone else's; (2) everyone can tell that there's no proof that you're a sock; and (3) being a sock isn't even against WP rules, as long as you don't comment twice or otherwise misrepresent yourself.  I'm sorry you're offended, but you'll be much better off if you just let it go.


 * William - sorry for kibbitzing on your page. PG - If you want me to point you to the relevant policies on why calling someone a sock, or even being a sock, isn't that big a deal, leave a note on my talk page.  Thanks, TheronJ 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pussy. I'm concerned that you are mainly asking out of a taste for drama and conflict, rather than any serious attempt to understand my thinking. How about this: You tell me why you think I made the choices I did, and I'll let you know if I see any errors in your reasoning. William Pietri 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pussy. You ask If I am a sock puppet, who is my master? It's been 38 years since I read it, but wouldn't the answer be Auric Goldfinger? ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * TheronJ, apologies my comments weren't directed towards you. William, is it not illogicial to ask me to present reasoning to justify your actions? If I could do so, would I not be in complete accordance with you? How was the 'concern' over my alleged malicous sock puppetry justified? Who is my master?


 * ClairSamoht, it's either that, or Mr Bond, I forget.--Pussy Galore 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

PussyGalore, I believe that I have explained my action clearly. I also believe that you understand my explanation. If you would like to tell me what that understanding is, I will gladly correct it if that's needed. Other than that, I see no way to aid you. Sorry, William Pietri 23:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, my understanding is that you beleieve that when I was originally labelled as a potential malicous sock puppet, you believe that this was justified. I do not understand what this justification is based on. There is no evidence of any malicous sockpuppetry, the checkuser I requested on myeself said that I had not engaged in malicous activity, no-one can tell me who my master is supposed to be, or can even present a single diff in justification. What exactly are you basing your understanding on, and how? --Pussy Galore 23:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Thanks. I didn't say it was justified, I said that I did not believe it was intended as a personal attack. My primary basis for that belief is the assumption of good faith, plus a little consideration of plausible explanations for his actions. As to what Pascal Tesson's exact justification was, I couldn't say. However, were I to guess, I would expect that something about your contributions under this name led him to believe that you had extensively used Wikipedia before. From what you say, he would have been correct in that assupmtion. I presume he then, based on his past experience with malicious users, worried someone creating a new account without announcing the fact might be up to no good, and expressed that worry. But if you really want to know his reasoning, you'd do better by asking him. William Pietri 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK dude. As you can see, given what I have said, I hope you are able to better understand why I feel that there is no basis whatsoever for the position taken by Arthur, therefore I could see no reason to support that position. As you have explained, you have taken Arthurs actions at face value, and presumed that there must be reason behind the actions. Many thanks for taking the time to explain.--Pussy Galore 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

GLF
Check out Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost - I've had word from Jimmy Wales on this matter. -- ChrisO 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You might be just the man....
...to solve the Jason Fortuny problem.

Here's the problem: An article has been created on the subject of Jason Fortuny. There are no biographical references for the subject Jason Fortuny, about whom we know virtually nothing. What documentation exists relates solely to one incident in which he is involved. Thus, we can't have an article on Jason Fortuny the person, per WP:LIVING.

On the other hand, there is a notable Internet privacy case involving Fortuny, and this has decent references.

The obvious answer to my mind is to have a paragraph in Internet privacy which deals with this problem, perhaps including other examples if such exist. Whether we then leave a redirect at Jason Fortuny is a matter of some indifferencew to me, because the issue will be placed in a context outside of the individual himself.

I have proposed this at DRV. What do you think? Guy 09:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fine solution. I'm on it. William Pietri 16:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Emailcash AfD
I closed it as no consensus for 2 reasons I agree the article needs rewriting but deletion is not warranted. Hope this helps - Gl e n 21:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There was no consensus (one delete vote does not consensus make), and
 * 2) The website clearly meets WP:WEB - see here for a start...


 * Thanks for the reply. I think the first is cause for relisting rather than closing as keep. However, you're completely right about the second. Thanks for digging those up. William Pietri 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for your help
Re your message: No problem. Always glad to help somebody beat back the vandals. Especially the really annoying ones like that one. You missed him coming back logged out. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lauder-Frost
Please see note from Ed Chilvers on my Talk. Your thoughts? Guy 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

External links to usaeyes.org
Hi, William. Thank you for your comments. I'll take a look at the articles that link to that site. Although I'm not absolutely opposed to referencing that site in various articles, I think the owner/administrator should refrain from doing it himself. Cheers! -AED 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, and appreciate you checking it out. William Pietri 08:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nice close on Lauder-Frost
Thanks for the thoughtfully-worded close of the Lauder-Frost AfD. It's always nice when an AfD is closed on more than a quick numerical tally, and especially nice when the closer takes the time to explain the reasoning. If I ever pick up the mop and bucket, I'll take this one as a model. William Pietri 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The controversial ones really need plenty of attention in closing. It was especially warranted here since, as I said in my reasons, there were many people involved and the nomination came jointly from you and Ed and Guy, and a no consensus wasn't going to be a tenable result. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lexis-Nexis search data as posted is here: User:William Pietri/GLF along with some other stuff and some comments from the anons from which, by suspending disbelief, you may be able to distill at least a grain of sense. I don't see a big deal with keeping this here, you could always remove the name. Otherwise feel free to tag db-user or leave me a note when you're done with it and it can be nuked. Or head on down to RFA and then you can nuke it yourself :-) Guy 14:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will probably just copy that offline. As to the RFA, I feel like I'm almost there. I'd still like to build a couple of more substantial articles, but I have targets in mind and, now that the GLF saga is over, some energy to do it. Give me six weeks or so and I should be ready. Thanks again for the vote of confidence. William Pietri 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

DTN reliability poll
Hi, William. I read your reply to my question on the WP:RS talk page regarding DiscoverTheNetwork, and wanted to ask if you could vote in the poll about its reliability. By the way, context for this debate is the article for the MSA, which currently has a lot of POV info from DTN. Thanks! -  22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.
The issue isn't civility at all. Open an RfC. Hey, I'll second it. I want this as publicized as possible in the Wiki community, and I want to get to the root of it. WP:CIVIL is often nothing but something with which to brain other editors with whom one disagrees. I suppose you've quit assuming good faith with regard to me. Save your typing hands, you don't have to tell me. Billy Blythe 20:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think people often mean well but are accidentally uncivil, so you're reading more into this than is there. I confess, though, that I don't see much in your reply above that demonstrates good faith, and your expressed taste for drama worries me further. If your intention here is to build a good encyclopedia rather than stirring up trouble, I'd encourage you to focus on productive, uncontroversial activity. If you aren't sure whether some action or comment fits in that, feel free to ask me or some other experienced editor in advance. William Pietri 20:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

youtube
I wasn't the one who put that sentence there. However, i edited it because there is some confusion as to if the purchase has been made yet. As i stated on the youtube talk page, it has not yet. dposse 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

reply
please see the rottie talk page--Edited By a Professor of Life 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanity check request - Clint Curtis
Guy, William, if you guys get a chance, can you take a look at Clint Curtis and let me know what you think? I hope I'm not in an edit war, but it's getting close to an edit border conflict or something, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 19:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University
William, you've expressed an interest in this article before -- can you take a look at Talk:Pacific Western University and leave a note as to whether you think the proposed draft is acceptable as a replacement for the existing stub?

Thanks,

--A. B. 17:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming template changes
Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
As you can see at the top, real life has unfortunately interfered with my Wikipedia editing. I'm working on a startup-ish project that has interesting congruences with Wikipedia, and hopefully will serve as a repository for a lot of content that currently (and rightly) gets removed here as unencyclopedic. More news as it comes in, and don't hesitate to send me e-mail if you need to get my attention. Thanks, William Pietri 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)