User talk:JzG/Archive 20

User:JzG/talkArchive

---

I'm offline Sunday 25 March, 2007, for a french horn festival in Nottingham including the premiere of a salute to Dennis Brain written by Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, played by Michael Thompson, and commissioned by a group of fifty people including my son. We have an autographed copy of the score, and there is an arrangement for all abilities which will also be premiered, my son will be playing in that. Aged twelve - how cool is that? Proud parent time. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to that, have a great time. Give your son some props - I played French Horn for a year, it's not easy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not easy" is an understatement - opinion is divided on whether the horn or the oboe is the most difficult orchestral instrument to play, both are notoriously fickle. Any given valve position will give you about a dozen notes on the horn, and some of them are less than a semitone apart. See if you can find a recording of The Hanover Band with Tony Halstead playing the Weber concertino some time - absolutely remarkable (plus Tony is a really nice guy). Guy (Help!) 00:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't do reeds, so I say french horn. Either way, I'm suitably impressed. Enjoy it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, this wouldn't be the one in the Lakeside Arts Centre at my university, roughly 11am tomorrow would it? – Steel 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was, and it was absolutely fantastic - beyond all imagining. Especially the concert at the end. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Guy, I recently took it upon myself to propose that User:BenH be formally banned by the community. It's been almost a year since you banned him for disruptive edits while he had an RfC pending on him, and instead he has created numerous sockpuppets. One of them appears to have been active as late as March 20.

Since you were the one who imposed the initial indefinite block, your support would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, and good luck to your son! Blueboy96 05:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, I can't type ... accidentally put you as a BenH sock ... can you forgive me? Blueboy96 14:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of myg0t. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. cacophony ◄► 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh FFS, not again. I bet hundreds of puppets will be along to tell us how notable they are. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just providing proper notice. cacophony ◄► 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Bauer DRV (q.v.) was closed for the moment before you could see and reply to my question to you there - so I'd appreciate any thoughts here instead. Regards, Newyorkbrad 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, Guy, I can't thank you enough for your time. If there is anything I can help you with don't hesitate to ask.

Yours,

AdamBiswanger1 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For you. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

Hello JzG, I hope you are well. I would like to notify you of the following action I have taken:

Please view ongoings of Kzq9599 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has accused others of being paid political operatives and is driving really hard with a political agenda. What do you think? That user's behavior is very strange. Arbustoo 02:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as a political operative, already banned. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599. Arbustoo 14:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, BryanFromPalatine. An old friend. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or his brother. Or his uncle. Or his brother-in-law's dentist's nephew. --BenBurch 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, Guy--once the community ban on User:BenH is formally enacted, would any reverts done to clear out damage by his socks be exempt from the three-revert rule? I always assumed that reverts from edits of community-banned people were exempt, but wanted to make sure. Blueboy96 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to JzG for diligence both on Wikipedia and on Meta in fighting spam. --A. B. (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Title – Decision – trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DISCUSSION
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this new account from a public computer because you accidentally blocked my normal account User:WPBio. If you look at the checkuser report, it confirms that while the other 2 accounts appear to be sock puppets/meat puppets, my IP is unrelated. I would greatly appreciate if you could unblock WPBio because I am 100% unrelated to the other individual(s) and I simply had the misfortune of getting dragged into this whole controversy by responding to a request for help on the living person notice board. I apologize for any inconvenience. Iswinterover 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was no accident. Special:Contributions/WPBio shows no evidence of anything other than tendentious editing in the footsteps of a banned user. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The checkuser established that WPBio is not a sockpuppet. Your edits to his user and talk pages are in error. You should unblock him. Frise 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. WPbio registered to interject himself into the situation where other socks were. Maybe mere coincidence, but... his second edit was to change policy concerning BLP to affirm the claims made by the socks at the Wilson article. Thirdly, WPbio admitted on his talk that he has had at least one previous wikipedia account, but "can't remember" what it was. I think the logical concludion given all this is WPbio is Bryan. Arbustoo 01:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why did you request a checkuser if you were just going to disregard the results? Frise 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll answer your question: It's not the results alone that decided the block.
        • Now answer my question. Your first edit in nearly a month was on this page concerning a new editor.[1] Your recent activity is concerned solely with this event. Why? Arbustoo 04:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Guy, this might be of interest to you. Arbustoo 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't prod him with a sharp stick, it will only get you in trouble, but you might want to take it to the admin noticeboards. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting the subpages for Word Association. There was no decision in any of the deletion process for deleting these games. The decision was to delete the ARCHIVES. Thank you.Squad51 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They have nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia, my reading of the MfD is delete subpages and all variants leaving the main game. deletion review is second on the right down the hall. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not the decision made, nor do you have the right to make a decision alone. I am reporting you for vandalism.Squad51 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. There was no reason to delete it. It was a sandbox after all :D At0m1Ca 14 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe vandalism report could take it too far, but still, the decision stated to delete certain subpages, not every single one of them. I know that it has nothing to do with encyclopedia building, but I see it as a big help for people to understand how pages should be edited and whatnot. Freqrexy 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wiki vandalism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Milto LOL pia 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cornuke, an LBU alumnus article has been hit 5 times in the last month with the same OR, NPOV, and COPYVIO material dumped in by SYITS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). SYITS is a SPA and has never edited on any other article. The user has been warned and has refused to put edits for consensus. Arbustoo 01:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested speedy deletion, as on [2] Cfitzart 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through Category:Protected and unprotecting long-protected pages that no longer need it. Do you think it's time to unprotect Jeffrey Ake? In your protection edit summary you mentioned an OTRS request. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 13:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There was an appeal being run and people were publishing personal info of the teacher running the appeal. Not sure what the risk is now. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have a moment, would you please reduce the protection level to semi on this article? The main problems were being caused by new/anon users, so I think we're safe with edits from established users. Thanks, Elonka 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you block the IP and Ghancock01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Arbustoo 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is this user page a bit...much? --Calton | Talk 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not just you. Too many links to one domain. I have cleaned it and left the user a note. He's also been asked to consider a username change. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, can you revisit this discussion, because they didn't like what I was doing at German Wikipedia, so I'm stopping for the moment. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that, if it needs to be seconded. I'm worried that the domains aren't going to blacklisted. If not, what should be our next course of action? (I asked the same question there, so feel free to respond there.) --Iamunknown 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Guy, but I didn't know that a fan site couldn't be an encyclopedia. Sure, fan site comes with the connotation that it's "OMG OMG DANIEL RADCLIFEEFEFE IS SOSOOOOOO HOT" but the Lexicon is a different example of a fan site: information about the books, true, recommended by the series' author, an excellent reference point. So, I agree with you but still feel I am correct to label it a fan site. After all, it receved JKR's Fan Site Award. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not mistake a site which fans edit for a fan site. JK Rowling clearly did, but we should not. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right then, we have a difference of opinion on fan sites. I would think a fan site would be a site edited by fans (as JKR does, I don't know why we wouldn't follow her stand); most of these sites are worthless crap, but some of them, such as the Lexicon, are excellent points of reference. It is unfortunate that most people rule out fan sites as WP:RS, but this is why I am against the argument "fancruft".
  • Also, looking back at the conversation, I just want to make sure you didn't confuse my antecedent "this" meaning the Lexicon as this meaning Wikipedia? I agree that Wikipedia is not a fan site if that's what you were saying. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'd just gotten discussion redirected to AMA, and now you're undoing me. I don't think MFD is very constructive at all in this case.

Since you have re-opened the MFD, does that mean you are committing to what you said on the Adminitrators' Noticeboard? Will you be creating a replacement organisation? --Kim Bruning 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I will help. That's all I can do. If you can remodel AMA to fix the suckness, then I will reverse my !vote. I hold you in very high regard, especially as a builder of community. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy,

I'm thinking about requesting adminship sometime this Spring. Would you be interested in giving me some suggestions on preparing? Thanks, TheronJ 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the MyWikiBiz account is currently unblocked by Jimbo. I saw you had blocked his role/sock account. - Denny 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Still needs to appeal the community ban. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please also see this AFD, no consensus to delete. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• , Ah, the old "pitch till you win" game, eh? Gotta love Kohs. Well, he does, anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noone loves any of these characters. You realize that through repeated unilateral deletion, though, the MyWikiBiz story just gets more unflattering? It's a real episode that many people and news agencies find notable. Aaronbrick 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be easy to find more than one semi-trivial independent source, then. Factive turns up nothing for me... Guy (Help!) 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skeepdik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I reverted and it was added back. Arbustoo 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another GruntGrunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) First ever edit was on the SAB talk page wanting to include "guess whose work" in the article.[3] Third ever edit was on my talk page, which was concidentally when I was blocked and could not respond on the SAB or bring it to the attention of an admin. Arbustoo 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_29#MyWikiBiz

I respect your work a lot, Guy, and had no problem with a troll being blocked... the IAR deletion isn't a good idea. - Denny 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, re: your reply to my comment in the third Kinsella AfD, which part of WP:COI do I appear to be violating? My understanding of the guideline is that in a case such as this, where I have (or, actually, had) an organizational connection with the article subject I should "exercise great caution" to abide by WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, and WP:AUTO. Which of those do you think I am violating? If you have no particular evidence to the contrary, please keep assuming good faith. I did not suggest that your nom was a bad faith one, but if you took my comment that way I apologize. As always, I certainly welcome the review of my fellow Wikipedians and I continue to wear my affiliations on my wiki-sleeve. Cheers, DickClarkMises 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody says you can't edit, only that you should take care, as you note above. I don't see a big problem with your edits, it's the appearance of the thing here, and also the possibility of subtle subconscious bias which editors who are not subject experts (which in this case will be most of us) cannot necessarily detect. Use introspection before committing to Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with declaring your affiliations, that's good, but as you note, you need to be circumspect. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy,
There is a Right-to-vanish ticket with your name on it. I'm not sure if your still participating in the OTRS, but I thought you should know.
---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem. I'm a newbie over there too. :) Ticket# 2007031010014662 ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. That one fell out of my inbox. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont appreciate you deleteing XXL on the macedonian girlgroup. atleas tnot for the reason you where given. I see it as a bad faith deletion.you are well aware that they where notable. --Matrix17 14:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No I am not, actually. And the XXL article was 50% non-notable, 50% blatant attack. If you want ot say they were panned, cite reliable secondary sources for that. And by that I mean reviews of the criticism, not the criticism itself. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see by your user discussions here that their are other people also complaining and asking you why you put on deletion tags on many pages at the same time. And yes they are notable. just becuase the text is short doesnt mean it is a deletion worthy text. Keep that in mind.--Matrix17 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. I am the kind of guy that thinks articles with on evidence of passing the primary notability criterion should be nuked. Yup, that gets some kickback. Yup, I'm completely comfortable that the project is better off without almost all of the thousands of articles I have personally deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt even make the nomination properly!--Matrix17 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or rather, the JavaScript didn't. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided 10 references at the moment. Is this enought to pass WP:BIO?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Depends how good they are, how comprehensive, and how much they are focused on the subject, but at a glance that certainly looks a lot better. Good work. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV is not about whether you want it deleted or kept, it is about whether the admin followed procedures properly and this one didn't. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. Clue trumps process always. Clue, Policy, Process, in more or less that order. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. If he was any more transparent he'd be a window. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a twunt that guy is. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he's already added three new socks to the extensive list since that as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's box has been opened, now he can get any site he wants blacklisted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but ultimately pointless as we'll simply whitelist them in enWP, which is the only place most of them are used anyway. Eventually the idiot will tire of the futility of it. In the mean time he helps us find the open proxies. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uuh, there is something going terribly wrong here. And not only that the feelings at de: regarding dictatorship of enwiki are buildings up.

There may have been a lot of editing by the site owners recently, but it's my honest impression, that most links on de: and a significant share of here, where added by bona fide editors.

That would imply that the question of inclusion should be debated on the respective article discussion pages. And not unilaterally banned by technical means.

Pjacobi 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have commented over at de:, but the site owner was quite open about having added the links himself. We can work on this, though. Bed time for me, though. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Counterfeit site death-camps-dot-org has been shut down by the ISP for copyright violation and fraud. I would assume that puts this matter to rest as to legitimacy.

This all went to hell because people chose to put good sense aside instead of sticking to the facts. Crackius

• (cross post from User_talk:Atomaton) - Hello Guy. Atom seems to make some good points in his request for unblock. Could you please (a) carefully consider his request and (b) if you still think the block is valid, can you please provide more specifics as to what you view as the problem behavior? Thanks so much, Johntex\^talk 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been doing it for a long time. Time he stopped. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time he got warned first, then - I'd say. You should at least be specific about why you blocked him. Johntex\^talk 08:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy, from over here it looks like Atomaton's been upholding consensus, not acting against it; the censors nominate an X-for-Deletion, consensus does not agree, the censors remove it anyway, Atomaton restores it. If that's an edit war, who's the aggressor? Atomaton's role has only been to uphold the consensus version; why not block the consensus violators instead? Conversely, if it has now become a blockable offense to uphold consensus, and we shouldn't do that any more, then all these policies and guidelines telling us to do exactly that should be revised first. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Use of the term censorship to characterise the opposition in debate on Wikipedia is almost always an indication of being in the wrong. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would cheerfully welcome any re-wording (refactoring) you might be willing to offer. The pattern of behavior to which I refer is: going to articles specifically on topics involving nudity and/or sex, and deleting (or attempting to delete) the illustrations precisely because these do illustrate the topic, or the text because it is too graphic, or even the templates {{notcensored}} and {{notcensored2}} so these cannot appear on the talkpages... having at some point argued that children should not be exposed to such material, therefore it should not be on Wikipedia -- an argument squarely at odds with WP:NOT#CENSORED (which, you will notice, does use the word "censored"). What word best expresses this, most fairly and most accurately? If not "censor", then what? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't really apply in this case, htough, since the substitution was one picture for another with similar content. No censorship involved. The issue, as I understand it, was with the age of the subject, which if it is not unambiguously below 21 would trigger record keeping under 18 USC 2257 Guy (Help!) 10:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other articles you might consider deleting: Alex Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Max French, Jason Ouwendyk.

For the first you make like 20-30 bad faith nominations that dont even is done properly. so dont lecture me in what to do, in this case.--Matrix17 09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, bad faith means a nomination made to prove a point. None of my nominations are designed to prove a point. I nominate articles only if I believe they should not be on the project. And categorising the nominations is optional. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dearly love to nominate Time Cube for deletion, but after 4 AfD's I just don't dare. This article is just so bad. It is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. It's so long, it deals with the subject with detail and seriousness it doesn't deserve, and attracts all kind of weird editing... And there are of course no serious reliable sources -- of course, how can there be any? It should be cut down to the barest minimum, with all the "time cube claims" and "refutations" removed -- but then I would be accused of vandalism... Will Wikipedia become a list of all the crap that can be found out there on the internet? -- Ekjon Lok 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not going away any time soon. Take it to the Talk page. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I respect that. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like to learn the hard way don't they? Might be deleted by the time you see it, I've tagged it naturally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your posting on AN/I, and had a couple questions for you. I'm very much intrigued by politics, both in my own country and abroad, familiar with the WP:BLP policy, share a desire to keep these sorts of things out of the all-to-common-today realm of mudthrowing between supporters and detractors and actually think that I may have the knowledge and skills to help out a bit dealing with some of the complaints made under that banner. So, wanting to volunteer for this and not seeing any 'sign up' option at the page you linked to, is this a earned-type posistion, would I fufill the criteria, is it as simple as dropping a line to someone, things along this nature. Sorry for the long winded post, Guy, but any response would be appreciated. -M^ask 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can volunteer for OTRS, the things that they are looking for are patience, discretion, preferably more than one language, and a decently long history. I'm not sure there are formal qualifications. You need to start at m:OTRS. Remember, though, that it is a system which gives access to highly sensitive personal data, and requires diplomatic handling of upset people, so please don't be offended if they say you are not ready yet. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 20:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, actually I did, but never mind... Guy (Help!) 20:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copy vio as the BBC site has removed the cool wall from the top gear mini-site. If you can provide proof of a copy vio from another source please show this as evidence f your claims of a copy vio.--Lucy-marie 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not have to be on their website to be their intellectual property. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"" Ok please expand on this this is the first anyone has ever said anything like t his if this is true large chunks of wikipedia need removing--Lucy-marie 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Ok I can kinda see where you are coming from but would this not mean the complete removal of a lot of other things on wikipedia if this were true? can you also please provide a source for this claim. I would argue this is a fair use as no market is being infringed.--Lucy-marie 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong. A lot of Wikipedia's lists are copied from external formats and sources and violate copyright. You know those dreadful "100 best" programs? We may not reproduce the list. We can give, say, the top five. We can say that foo was in the top 100 worst records ever according to..., but we can't reproduce the list without violating copyright. The Top Ten is copyright. All music charts are copyright. You can say that an album charted, but the top ten is copyright. I only found this out recently so I don't blame you for not knowing. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me? (on my talk page) I think this is a dispute with two sides here and not one side endemically right here I think a third party should sort this out not an admin on one side of the argument.--Lucy-marie 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me pop in and sort this out, then. Pictures from the BBC site, even if not posted there right now, are copyrighted. Those pictures, to be used on Wikipedia, must fulfil our policy on fair use, which is more strict than legal fair use. If you can provide evidence that it does meet our fair use policy, then it can be used, but otherwise, it can not. And Guy is right that many things on Wikipedia do violate copyright, and should be removed. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not images, reproduction of the contents of the Cool Wall. But I appreciate your input. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see you are making a lot of assertions here but where is an external source backing up your claims? I don't mean to be awkward but it seems daft to classify this as a copy vio.--Lucy-marie 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that content of broadcast shows is copyright is hardly novel. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THats not under dispute here what is under dispute is weather reproduction in a different manner to the way it is portrayed in the show is a copy vio. I also still would like some veracity to your claims.--Lucy-marie 21:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's functionally equivalent to reproducing chunks of script. But this should be on the article's talk. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, could you please restore the constructive edits made by Kohs during his period of being unblocked? Even if one accepts (as I do not) that the ban you imposed on him is legit, it doesn't apply retroactively; he made those edits while editing with Jimbo's own permission. The only sane reason for removing good edits made by a banned user is to deter them from evading the ban (and even that is quite ridiculous, in my opinion); since Kohs was editing legitimately and was evading nothing, this cannot possibly apply. Everyking 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Banned users get all edits reverted. Constructive ones may be reinserted by other users should they wish. Kohs knew he was banned and was gaming the system, and I think several of the edits were made after the ban on his main account was reinstated. In any case, he was using a sockpuppet account. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel mildly inquisitive tonight. Is there any sort of standard for this removal of external links to fansites? (Certainly such links are present in various recent front-page FAs.) –Unint 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally to be avoided, as there are no end of them, and it's virtually impossible to draw a line. Official fan club sites are the exception. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Often that's the case. What about cases where one or two links are literally the only fansites in existence? (Even moreso in this particular case, where the supposed "official" site currently contains nothing more than a single graphic.) –Unint 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't like non-official fansite links. Never did. All too often they are added by the site owners to gain trafic, and don't actually improve the article as an encyclopaedia article, only as a homepage for the fan community. Which is MySpace's job. We don't want to get into a demnarcation dispute with that lot :-) Guy (Help!) 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly such links are present in various recent front-page FAs? Curious, where in a recent FA? I routinely object to FACs that need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. Unfortunately, "fans" support many FACs, and they get consensus to be featured even with fansites used as sources, over my actionable objections about reliable sources. The only way we can stop that is to have more reviewers at FAC, since "fans" can overwhelm consensus. Mandy Moore was promoted last August; if it uses fansites as sources, it can be brought to WP:FAR about a week after mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote.--Play Brian Moore 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• De nada. I see not much to gain and a fair bit to lose from forcing the issue, but the debate is probably worth having just to clarify the issue once and for all. Again. Until next time. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have been abusing the DRV process for List of Mario Party minigames. Please read this extract of WP:DRV#Purpose

This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

As you can see, saying that the content was unacceptable doesn't fly during DRVs. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what we call wikilawyering. Make your case there. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be nice to get some peace and quiet (well, from this at least) once all the DRVs are over won't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a third opinion at Talk:Chinaman. You might want to read English language names for Chinese people first. Uncle G 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems as though any third opinions are also needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English language names for Chinese people, too. Uncle G 10:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:AleMoon.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES ^(talk) 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AKMask has falsely accused Bowsy and I of sock/meat puppetry using incredibly unreliable evidence. Please do something. Henchman 2000 10:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice of you to read the linked page before using it as an excuse for your unilateral actions. The result was to delete archive pages, and to keep everything else. Stop deleting stuff without consensus.  Grue  11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I read it. What part of "Wikipedia is not a social network" are people having trouble understanding? We are not here to invent and promote new forms of word association game. The so-called "sandboxians" should either go back to MySpace or work on the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And having a few word association games makes Wikipedia a social network? In any way, you are not the one to unilaterally decide what's okay, and what is not. The people spoke largely in favor of keeping and you should respect their opinion.  Grue  11:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume you'll be removing the Nerd Boy content you inserted into ASCII comic, given that Nerd Boy was deleted by this AfD? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the matter we're discussing??? Ask me on my talk page if you want to know the answer.  Grue  11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase you - In any way, you are not the one to unilaterally decide what's okay, and what is not. The people spoke largely in favor of deleting and you should respect their opinion One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the second discussion? "The people" have changed opinion. What does this have to do with User:JzG? Can you go trolling elsewhere?  Grue  11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the second discussion, and there was no consensus for the inclusion of Nerd Boy resulting from it. I'd say it's rather evident what relevance this has. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how my deletion is unilateral whereas your undeletion is somehow not...

The purpose of these games is to play the games. The purpose of the sandbox is to test editing skills and then go and work on the encycloapedia. Having a word association game does not violate policy, because it rapidly leads people into the encyclopaedia, but having numerous novel variants of word association promoted through a template does violate WP:NOT a social network, in my view because instead of leading people into the encycloapaedia it's primarily about encouraging them to keep coming bvack and playing sandbox games. The sandbox is not an appropriate online game hosting venue. And even if you disagree with the action, you should go to WP:DRV rather than simply reverting another admin's deletions. Or at the very least have the decency to tell me beforehand, which you didn't. I spotted bluelinks in my periodic review of my deletion log and assumed that the so-called sandboxians had simply re-created them yet again, which they have done several times already. They don't like the deletion. They didn't like the deletion of any of the pages, including the ridiculous archives. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was established that these games are useful tool for finding new articles to edit, and make people more productive, not less. As for DRV, it was you who was acting contrary to the closer's decision, and it's you who should've brought it on DRV, since you obviously disagree with it. I'm just restoring the status quo after the discussion was closed.  Grue  11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was established that the word association game was useful, not a dozen novel variants and a tempate inviting people back to focus on game playing rather than article space. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template wasn't even nominated, we have TfD for this. As for dozen novel variants, they should've been nominated separately, some are useful and some aren't. Ultra game for example was there for a long time, and it can be argued that it's more efficient than traditional 1D game. I can't say anything about other games, but they may be useful as well.  Grue  11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, looked at another way, thew word association game has a purpose briadly in line with the sandbox, the rest of the crap does not. Most of what's in the sandbox should simply be nuked, actually. Storytelling, especially. Why on earth would we maintain a Byzantine hierarchy of shit in the space that's there for poeple to quickly test their editing skils before getting on with working on the encyclopaedia? Last time I reviewed it there were a small number of individuals who had no edits at all outside of their user space and the sandbox. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so people know, I am a teensy bit pissed off right now. I have been pretty vigorously attacked for removing the list of cars from cool wall, which I did because I could not see how reproducing in its entirety a list compiled by a copyright programme would be anything other than a violation of copyright, and it now seems that I am alone in thinking that the sandbox is for testing editing skills before going on to work on the encyclopaedia - seems it's actually the hosting provider for novel variants on word association, and not an editing test at all; my interpetation of consensus was in fact so far off-base that it didn't even justify a quick note on my Talk letting me know that the removal of the novel variants had been reverted. Which puts me in my place nicely. Seems that Wikipedia is MySpace after all! Perhaps I should go and sign up to an online encyclopaedia instead of a social network, since I do my social networking primarily with meatware. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you won't mistake the humour for lack of empathy, when I find I have to chuckle at your "meatware" comment : ) - jc37 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a user RfC going on for User:Martinphi, at which he has disputed the removal of his advocacy comments (and again called them "vandalism"), insisted that his policy violations were justified and that he has done nothing wrong . Since you were the admin who removed his advocacy message, I thought you should know and be given the opportunity to respond to his comments. You have also been mentioned in the discussion and your comments quoted. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi --Minderbinder 14:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it usually take before a decision is made, on whether or not an AfD gets deleted? Just curious. TenPoundHammer 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Five days, longer if more input is needed. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. TenPoundHammer 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep running across refs to Borgman and Legge, their work (like The Deserter (2006 film)), Sideshow Cinema (and its internal spamming), Democrazy, and these guys' compatriots being inserted hither and yon (such as at Brussels International Festival of Contemporary Silent Film or here) by his number one fan Dwain (talk · contribs), whose response has been incoherent rants about conspiracy theories and vandalism. Bits and pieces of this vanity circus pop up on AFD, but I'm minded to collect everything into one place and AFD the lot, with (I hope) an unambiguous decision that everything needs to be cleared out once and for all. So, good idea, quixotic idea, or asking for trouble? --Calton | Talk 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke it. Borgman's vanity spamming has gone on long enough. The Sideshow Cinema article sucks so badly that no light can escape - a collection of non-notables, generally deleted, a blatant end-run around deletion process and positively loaded with spam. There might be a notable subject int here somewhere, but the list of nobodies has to go. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. Please take a look. >Radiant< 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG... you surprise me considering you are not on the talk page about this. Your move is not proper considering the article is protected. (→Netscott) 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO the best qualification for judging it is precisely that: not being on the talk page. I am not vested in either camp. It was clearly a unilateral move lacking prior consensus, WP:BRD applies. You were bold, that is now reverted, please discuss. Only please, please stop the sniping between you and Radiant!, you should both know better. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made a post on WP:AN this is improper. WP:BRD does not apply to protected pages and adminstrators utilizing their tools particularly when summoned by one of the conflicting parties to do so. (→Netscott) 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a step back. Chill. Drink tea. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm feeling like donning a spider suit. Hehe. Still man not a good move on your part. (→Netscott) 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Feh. I don't really care that much either way, to be honest, but I think we should take it a step at a time and get agreement first. Good to retain your sense of humour about it, though :-) Guy (Help!) 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I have taken an unprovoked tongue lashing from you and I am tired of it. How dare you accuse me of promoting a film! Because someone edits an article about an independent film, it's promotion? Because I fight against an administrator who disregards Wikipedia's own policies and who refuses to either discuss his actions or follow proper procedure I'm a promoter? You have a nerve. Your actions which have not followed Wikipedia's procedures are questionable at the least and offensive at the most. I am not the one doing anything wrong and I demand an apology. Dwain 14:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here, have Eric Bruno Borgman, an apology for an actor :o) Guy (Help!) 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say harassment, what section are you talking about on the policy? Or do you mean this belongs in another? Thanks Guy! :) - Denny ^(talk) 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I see. My placement sucked. - Denny ^(talk) 20:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but you should probably have looked at where it would fit and what tone to use before posting. I still think it's a special case of harassment and probably better elsewhere, but harassment is not in WP:BP yet, and it probably should be. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to your post in the Admin noticeboard) -- Yes, they should be merged, and probably Mike Nifong too. But beware of what you're getting into. Every article related to the Duke rape scandal (2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, Mike Nifong, the accuser, maybe others?) is heavily POV toward the defendants. It's ridiculously bad - They read like indictments, listing out endless trivial points condemning the accuser, the prosecutor, the police, faculty who criticized the players, the case, etc. The main article is much too long. Many edits are by users named Blue*, Duke*, etc. They blatantly, aggressively push their POV (just read the Discussion pages). I've tried to moderate it a little, and even added an NPOV tag to the Mike Nifong page, but I simply don't have the time for it. The main article needs a NPOV tag too. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia, seeing it hijacked by one side of an issue. Guanxi 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh bugger, just what I need - another snow job perpetrated by jocks with too much time on their hands. It is so tempting just to hit "delete" sometimes... Guy (Help!) 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Bruce Mcmahan page you've been keeping an eye on, what about using the cort documents as a source? nothing inflammatory, just a simple "according to court documents, x accused y of z, z denied these claims"? Would this be an acceptable way to source it?-M^ask? 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very great care is needed in working from original court sources - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu for example. I suspect that article should probably just be nuked, pretty much all the external coverage is reprinted from the same source, which very obviously has an agenda in this case. If it were a member of the Kennedy clan it might be different, but I doubt most people would know guy if he bit them on the nose. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for being bold and doing the right thing. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which, of course, is promptly being undone. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Few have done more to help protect Wikipedia and its editors. MONGO 12:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please read through the talk page at WP:N and look at the history going back to February 07. This page has been stabilized through compromise to recognize the possibility that a single source could establish notability which is different from a single source being the only reference. Only in the last couple of days has there been a renewed and more supported backlash against what has been relatively stable.

I'm trying to find a middle ground which acknowledges the possibility of the single argument, but substantially admonishes against it. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 15:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did. The version I see as stable through compromise is not yours. This belongs at WT:N. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're tired of reading about him, but is it time to try to find his home ISP and fire off a WP:ABUSE report? KUTGW (keep up the Good Work) btw. SirFozzie 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We already know it. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JB196. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm the one who created it, after running into him several million times on wrestling articles previously. Just was wondering if he might have switched ISP accounts (probably can't tell from all the accounts he's created, open proxies up the wazoo). Will head over to ABUSE then. SirFozzie 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way to deal with Barber is WP:RBI. I said to Eagle 101 that if he posts any more spurious abuse reports at the SBL talk we should simply delete them and block the account used to post them. Few valid spam reports come from users who are not self-identified as Wikipedia users of one language or another with substantial edit histories. Barber wants drama. We want him to fuck off. If we simply WP:RBI every time his head pops up, he will eventually become bored. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see WP:Abuse handles IP's only, anyway. Have a good evening. SirFozzie 17:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting ridiculous now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense has prevailed, see here and here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JzG! I am User: Himalayan Academy. Even though I will be mostly mnaging issues related to my institution, I will be the only one using this account. So I'll change it to something more personal. I was not aware of the policy. Thank you! Natha

• Okey dokey. You can ask for a change at WP:RENAME. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - sorry to bother you, but if you have the time and a free trout, your continued help might be useful here. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a response from you here. --Random832 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy applause for slashing the PESwiki links. It's a somewhat easier case in this instance, as Wikis are discouraged links anyway. I'm unclear whether it is wise to go after other notorious free energy site:

http://www.cheniere.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.cheniere.org

http://jnaudin.free.fr

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=jnaudin.free.fr

http://www.rexresearch.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.rexresearch.com

Pjacobi 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My own personal test is, do we, by linking to such a site, effectively create an offsite POV fork? Are these pages predominantly designed to "correct" the neutral point of view presented here? I know that's a controversial view. I certainly would want to challenge any use of these sites as sources, especially since a lot of the use as sources looks suspiciously like finding a gratuitous fact that can be linked to get traffic to the site. Also, the onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify its inclusion, so in questionable cases rremoving it and taking it to Talk is a good idea. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off those sites, RexResearh bothers me most, as it covers some obscures niches of technologies, which may or may not be correctly represented there (e.g. Karrick process). In contrast every sane person should see the Naudin site as look into the zoo of free enery and antigravity nutters. --Pjacobi 13:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable. Enough said. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta... pah! --Rikki-lee travolta 1030 12:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this reinsertion of the AIDSwiki on Harvey Bialy. User:Revolver is the named account of the IP you blocked (User:68.35.72.13) for spamming the AIDSWiki (and also the creator and main editor of said wiki). This post (particularly the last paragraph) may also be relevant. Have another trout handy? MastCell ^Talk 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 8. CJCurrie 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your work on Wikipedia, your anti-spam and vandal work, and for being one of the best admins around! Keep your good work up, and enjoy this barnstar! SunStar Net talk 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna head on over there. No sense in giving you the default template. --Iamunknown 06:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I know I'm acting like a dick and a troll now, but the image is fair use and cannot be used on Wikipedia unless it meets the fair use criteria. It should be removed from the non-main namespace. --Iamunknown 17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I know what you are doing and why. This is just one of the very rare cases where I think that copyright paranoia is not justified. Normally I am 100% in favour of deleting anything where copyright is anything other than unambiguous, and no it's not suitable for GFDL, that's my bad, but it is fair use parody, I think, and the context is not actually that important for that - mainspace is essential for fair use no free alternative illustrating the subject, but parody can be anywhere. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it could be replaced with a modified public domain title page or cover of a Marx/Engels text. --Iamunknown 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The redness of the Little Red Book is an essential element, though, in the context of WP:ROUGE. Anyway, see Image:Little rouge book.jpg for a more comprehensive rationale. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In follow up, if you feel rogueish enough to use it anyways, meh. I don't know, however, how you know what I am doing and why. You may be interested to know that my initial disclaimer was based on your threatening note at the top of the talk page that "I endeavour to satisfy good-faith requests to the best of my ability, but if you act like a dick, I will call you a dick. If you act like a troll, I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off." You may not be very experienced with image-related stuff, but I have some experience and am regularly called off, so such a note is unwarranted and threatening. Whatever, Iamunknown 00:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look through my archives and the edit history of this page, mate. I get an awful lot of trolling here. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User:CyclePat has been harassing Wikipedia:Editor assistance, and now he's harassing me as well (including aparently setting up an RfC against me). I've been holding off because you said you'd look into it and talk with him. Will you still be doing so? --Kim Bruning 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat is still out and about....more ANI, more WT:ASSIST, bleh --Iamunknown 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately, I was sick in bed on Friday, and did not see Captain scarlet's response to his block. However, I am completely baffled by your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#User:Captain scarlet's photographs: "Moral: think long and hard about indef-blocking anyone who has meaningful contributions. Single-purpose vandal accounts are ten a penny, editors like this, rather less so." I have no idea what indef blocking has to do with the scenario, but surely this sort of response to a 24 hour block for deliberate breach of the 3RR should make us question the helpfulness of "editors like this", as well as the usefulness of blocks in encouraging co-operative editing? JPD (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have now deleted this twice on spurious grounds; please stop. If you are determined to see it deleted, open another second AfD on it. It clearly makes a cliam to significance, and as one of the people who edited it, I take exception to the claim that I'm involved in advertising it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The grounds were not spurious. I believe it is part of the Legge / Borgman walled garden. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's a speedy criterion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. The Legge / Borgman fan club are spammers, plain and simple. And no, Mel is not one of them. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 isn't for films, and G11 obviously doesn't apply here. G11 applies to what's written, not who puts it there. You know this, Guy, this is why people get frustrated sometimes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 is for subjects that do not credibly assert notability. We can pretend that certain types of articles don't need to make any claim of notability, but it's not terribly sensible. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't pretend, it's for certain types of articles that don't assert, not any and all. It's entirely sensible - a controversial, more-open-to-abuse-than-others criteria is not expanded easily, and for good reason. If you're treating A7 as any old article, please, stop. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, it isn't. If he deletes it again, I shall block him for deleting an article out of process. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know something? When you monitor your deletion log for articles re-created out of process, it can be hard to miss the difference between obsessively reposted spam articles, and spam articles restored by an admin who didn't think your opinion sufficiently worthwhile to actually bother leaving a note on your fucking talk page. Because, you know, it's really really hard work to leave a note when you undo another admin's actions, and much easier to threaten to block them if they dare do it again after the event, isn't it? Thank you so much. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people are going to make a stink, why not just put it up for AfD? --Minderbinder 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with that. I have a bit of a problem with the reverting of one of my admin actions without letting me know, so I look a tit by re-deleting something that was restored instead of re-posted (and yes I know I should have checked, but it is still polite to let another admin know when you revert one fo their actions). I have an absolutely fucking huge problem with another admin threatening to block me (in a dispute in which they are clearly involved, I might add) if, after having pointed out that they undeleted it, I delete it again - as if that is likely to happen. People can accuse me of being bad tempered, foul-mouthed, unforgiving, inflexible, verbose, whatever, but pleas, please 'don't treat me as if I am a fucking idiot because although I am perfectly capable of being foolish, two things I am not are evil and stupid. And bear in mind that this follows on form a similar case recently, where someone didn't bother to let me know they'd undeleted something I nuked. Understand: I have absolutely no problem at all with people reviewing and sometimes reverting my deletions, but it would be, you know, neighbourly to at least drop me a note. So I don't reflexively nuke them again and look like a tit or start a wheel war when they show blue in my deletion log. Do I sound pissed off? I certainly hope so, because believe me, I am. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love that Mel is chastising you for all this humbug by saying he'll block, which would end up in him being chastised. Cute. --Iamunknown 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all seriousness, Guy... take a deep breath and let it go. We lost this fight a very, very long time ago, when Borgman/Legge/whichever-of-them-it-is fooled real users into doing his spamming for him. By all means insist on legitimate third-party sources for articles in their stolen little corner of Wikipedia; this will be enough to keep the kudzu somewhat under control. But getting rid of the articles entirely is at this point a lost cause. —Cryptic 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Guy, please undelete Honey Glaze, too - that didn't qualify for A7 having been kept at AfD before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that, when I discovered that an article had been deleted out of process with what was a clearly spurious reason, I didn't let you know, and I should have done. On the other hand, you didn't let me know when you deleted it again, which makes us square. Well, not quite, because I haven't thrown myself around like a Tourettes-sufferer on speed, but let's let that pass. I hold no brief for Honey Glaze, but it passed a VfD, so also shouldn't have been speedily deleted; I'm now informing you that I'm undeleting that too.

Both articles may be taken to AfD; Cryptic and you may have been involved in a fight over this, but I'm no part of it. I'd vote to keep the Democrazy article, as it claims and demonstrates some significance; I'd either abstain or vote to delete the Honey Glaze one, as it does neither. Whetehr you take this further is up to you, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Crucial difference: an article can reappear without the intervention of an administrator (and indeed those that do reappear generally are simply reposted by the original editor); an article cannot be deleted without the intervention of an admin. In clicking Undelete you always revert the action of another administrator. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now why you deleted the Reviews section for this book. I have replaced them as quotations. Is that ok? --Lesley Fairbairn 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I Am from the band Officer Roseland. my cousin created a page on here for us, and it was deleted. I was wondering if you can tell me why? It shouldn't have been created as an ad or anything like that.

Bonesmang 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember User:Fact Finder? This report looks an awful lot like his MO, but nobody commenting there has pointed that out yet. I'd make a note of it myself, but as you were involved with the guy earlier, I figured I'd make sure you saw it. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Reddi. I would like references to myself removed as I find them inappropriate and demeaning. Can you assist? ScienceApologist 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more information from http://rexresearch.com/ concerning perrigo ...

The Kansas City Public Library'sold newspapers is copied at the Rex Research ... the exact same information is at both places (with Rex Research having a few more articles) ...

I have the articles from the KCPL ... I wanted copies of the original stuff ... I went and verified them!!! They have the same information as rex-research! (you can do the same thing, goto the Library stacks and ask a references clerk to help look up the old newspapers ...)

This is suppressing facts by editor bias and abuse of ediiting. J. D. Redding

• So it's not an independent source either. Double the reason not to include it. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?!?!?

So a "google books" reference of a book should not be included? Other web sources that present information from other offline sources, that is not in copyright violation, should not be included?

Hell, according to that reasoning, anything that is on the web and is a copy of any offline version shouldn't be included ... because the web copy is not an independent source! Ha! that's funny. J. D. Redding 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are confusing external links with sources. Sources should be reliable, independent and authoritative. External links should avoid promotion, especially of kook ideas. The rexresearch site fails abjectly any test of reliability as a source, and is also inappropriate as a supporting external link. No, a Google Books review by some unknown user would not qualify as a source. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent reversion on my talk page. Just giving you a heads up that Homeboy Tame may be Kevin Green based on an edit at Rafael García - not sure yet and will report to WP:AIV in the future once we know for sure. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically yesterday I was planning on putting a message on your talk page that Kevin Green might be a sock of JB196 as the current mass blankings of wrestling related articles and WP:A zealots follows one of JB196's MO's thus he could be doing it now and hide under the guise of implementing wikipedia policy. I decided against it by givimg Green another day and by the time I did he was blocked as a JB196 sock. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm there was been a possibly uncovered sock farm here of JB196 socks. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Homeboy Tame is confirmed, just hit my user page again. SirFozzie 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reported at WP:AIV--VS ^talk 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you have to stop being so trigger happy on these:

• Baseball (drinking game) - not a speedy deletion candidate. Games are not qualified to be A7s.
• Back-Jump (board game) - not a speedy deletion candidate. See above.
• Back in the Picture - songs aren't speedyable.

You know this, and you continue to do it in defiance of people asking you not to. You love referring to clue, so here's one for you - the more you abuse something, the less likely it will be there for you to abuse in the future, and then there's a real problem. Please undelete these, or I'll take them to DRV. And please, please, PLEASE be more aware of your speedy deletions in the future, this is not a good track record as of late. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Process for process' sake. A complete waste of everybody's time. Please restrict yourself to fighting for articles that rise above the level of childish nonsense. For example: Back in the Picture is one of the band's least popular songs, since it has not been released as a single or a music video. It is neither a very popular live song. If a band is speediable then a song is, and wasting time is just that: wasting time. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball (drinking game) - it was a G4, I just picked the wrong thing form the drop-down. All deletion processes are chronically backlogged, but do feel free to spend time untagging invalid speedy candidates at CAT:CSD, which is where these came from. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, no problem with baseball, still seeing a problem with the other two. It's not a waste of time, contrary to what it is, it's battling problematic speedies. you don't have to like it, but i'm going to have to keep challenging you on these, because your judgment has been unfortunate as of late, and it's worrying. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bands are speediable. By extension, so are songs by minor bands which positively assert that they are not in the least bit notable, and where there is clear consensus established over years that it has to be a pretty remarkable song to get an entry if it's not even been released as a single. Not worth the extra time to type the AfD, and not worth your time or mine arguing over it. That is process-ism taken to a ludicrous and counterproductive extent. And now the full contents of the back jump article:

---

{{Infobox_Game
  | subject_name  = Back-Jump
  | image_link    = 
  | image_caption = 
  | players       = 2-6
  | setup_time    = under one minute
  | playing_time  = 10–30 minutes*
  | random_chance = None
  | skills        = Strategy
  | footnotes     = * Games do not have to end in 30 minutes and can go on until one of the players wins or there is a stalemate.
  | bggid         = 171
  | bggxrefs      = 
}}

<span id="63301630160" ></span>
==Know any good CheckUsers? (re:Barber)==
Yeah. Another 20 or so socks, tipped off by the fine folks who figured out the pattern over at [[WP:PW]]. Any chance we can bulldoze this particular sock farm before Barber takes up all the remaining unclaimed names? (grins). There's a request over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JB196 at CheckUser] that's been there for about 80 hours at this point (although it did let us find a bunch more in the meantime) [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 04:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:Te recent [[WP:A]] situation really has messed things up as some people see it as proper applicant of it when in fact it's simply a vandal abusing it to the extreme by blanking entire articles and having them fully protected allowing him to continue his war with wikipedia while getting support. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:: [[WP:RBI]] applies.  Revert all contribs, and if people then want to re-apply them under their own names that's up to them. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think {{user|Burntsauce}} is another sock that has attempted to hide itself behind other edits as well as tried to drum up support for its actions - look at Barber's post [http://www.socaluncensored.com/board/showthread.php3?t=12675 here] on a wrestling web forum which includes links to articles he has caused problems on by blanking info, including the actions of Burntsauce. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:I've started to tag all of the ones on the checkuser who have been blocked (Including the new one who just showed up at ANI) with the Sockblock-JB196 template. You keep blockin em and I'll keep taggin em :) [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63301621700" ></span>
== Brita Red Bulls ==

You deleted a page that I created with the above title. It was for 'notability guidelines'. Which, to me in layman's terms means 'it isn't important enough to have a page' - which is fine, but I don't really understand how every other team that play in the same league as the B. Red Bulls has a page and the Red Bulls aren't 'important' enough? Could you possibly clarify this for me please? Maybe respond on my talk page? Thanks, Luke-Samual E. Cullen [[User:Luke-Samual Ezekiel Cullen|Luke-Samual Ezekiel Cullen]] 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

* What you need are non-trivial independent sources. Inclusion of other teams is not an indication of inherent notability.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63301622060" ></span>
==[[List of members of the Irish Republican Army]]==

Can you take a look at this please? [[User:Bastun]] is [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make point]]. If you check the article's talk page and also [[User talk:Bastun#List of members of the Irish Republican Army.E2.80.8E|here]], [[User talk:Bastun#Colombia Three|here]] and [[User talk:Bastun#Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border|here]] you can see the problems he's been causing over the last 24 hours. I didn't create the article and I'm trying to sort it out, but rather than allow that to happen he's gutting it, when he's been asked several times to either unlink the names or pipe them to include (Irish republican). He's ignoring all attempts at reason. Thanks. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63301641620" ></span>
==Can you check in on [[WP:AN]]?==

Barber's at it again. *sighs* [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63301650500" ></span>
== [[List of members of the Irish Republican Army]] ==

Hi Guy.  On the above article's talk page, you said "If the individuals do not have an article, and it's unlikely that they ever would, then they should not be on the article. Wikipedia lists are navigational aids, not directories. A few redlinks are OK as long as the individuals are genuinely important (e.g. a chapter in a reputably-published book on the republican movement) and we just don't have an article yet." - which seems fine to me.  However, [[User:Vintagekits]] has now added approx. 150 redlinks back in.  Most now at least have "(Irish republican)" appended to the name, but some at least are still incorrect - e.g., [[Frederick Leonard]] are still incorrect links.  A single reference has been added to all of the restored entries: "''Tírghrá'', National Commemoration Centre, 2002. PB) ISBN 0-9542946-0-2"  The referenced book does not appear to exist, at least with that ISBN.[http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=0954294602] [http://www.ibookdb.net/interest.php?content=309&item=0954294602] [http://www.iblist.com/search/advanced_search.php?item=0954294602&Submit=Search&isbn=on]  Googling demonstrates the book does indeed appear to exist [http://www.guardian.co.uk/bloodysunday/article/0,,718401,00.html] [http://www.amazon.ca/Tirghra-Commemoration-Committee/dp/0954294602] - but at 368 pages you're talking what, a page and a bit per person?  Note also that the Guardian article states "The book, ''meant to be seen only by the relatives of the IRA dead'', claims that the 1993 Shankill bomb, which killed nine Protestants, including two children, was not a sectarian act." (my emphasis added).  This, if true, would surely also mean it cannot be used as a reputable, neutral, reliable reference?  So - what to do?  I do not want to get into an edit war.  I have outlined to Vintagekits the way articles should be created (which, coincidentally, appears close enough to the method suggested in [[WP:IRA]], but apparently he does not feel the need to do that.  Any suggestions? [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<span id="63301656080" ></span>
== Cute plushy award ==

[[Image:Stuffed tiger wearing a sombrero.jpg|thumb|right|180px|I, [[User:Durova|Durova]] award [[User:JzG|JzG]] the '''Whack-a-mole Stuffed Tiger Prize''' for bopping many sockpuppets at Carnival Wikipedia. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)]]
<span id="63301719462" ></span>
==Melissa Guille==

I'm a bit confused by your re-deletion of the Melissa Guille page.  It may have been in need of improvement, but I thought it was mostly balanced and fair toward the subject.

Aren't Nizkor, the London Free Press and the Kitchener-Waterloo Record considered reliable sources?  [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
* The reposted version was significantly worse than the deleted one.  There are two organisations, the Heritage Front and the Canadian Heritage Alliance.  The former appears to be a white supremacist group, but Guille asserts she was never a member and we have not seen a good source for her having been one, certainly not a leading member as is claimed.  The Canadian Heritage Alliance is more or less legitimate, though somewhat distasteful.  Most of what is thrown at Guille is guilt-by-association, and the sources mostly seem to boil down to one piece of investigative journalism.  There are very clearly a number of people wanting to paint Guille as black as possible, and there are very few neutral sources to draw on, and those mainly in connection with the Canadian Heritage Alliance, so for now we should concentrate on rewriting that as something other than an attack piece on a number of barely-if-that notable individuals.  If you are an OTRS volunteer I can give you the ticket number to review.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this response, for a number of reasons:

*(i)  The article didn't mention the Heritage Front, and I'm a bit uncertain as to why you'd bring up that organization  now.
*(ii)  I'm not certain where you got the impression that the Canadian Heritage Alliance is "more or less legitimate", a view which seems to be contradicted by other reports into the matter.  To judge from their website, they don't seem to be taking any great pains to conceal their far-right links.
*(iii)  Beyond this, I believe that the information in the revised Guille article was largely taken from reports in two credible, mainstream newspapers, one of which was sourced to the local police.  I'm not certain where your comment about "one piece of investigative journalism" is coming from.

Could I please request that you review your decision on this matter?  [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

:There's also the matter of the Human Rights Tribunal hearings concerning Ms. Guille and the [[Canadian Heritage Alliance]] from government websites: [http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=759&lg=_e&isruling=1], [http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=760&lg=_e&isruling=1], [http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=771&lg=_e&isruling=1]. I would imagine these would be accepted as legitimate sources? As for the article by [[Matthew Lauder]] I don't know why it, when presented with other legitimate sources such as the government website and newspapers would be dismissed out of hand. [[User:AnnieHall|AnnieHall]] 07:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:: This was discussed recently in another context.  If we have ''reliable'' sources discussing the case in detail, then we can link the court data as supporting evidence, but we can't build our own case based on the court documents.  I have only found one report that mentioned Guille "appearing on charges" in a reliable secondary source, the balance are all from a patently unreliable source.  But if you can write a new article in your user space based on proper sources, which established that the case is considered significant other than by Guille's detractors and those who have a deep-seated hatred of CHA, please do.  I am only judging the merits of the articles ''as posted'', which were problematic per [[WP:BLP]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not really sure how to respond to this. Government documents are only acceptable if there's a secondary source? I'm sorry, but this seems patently ridiculous. The [[Canadian Human Rights Tribunal]] documents are clearly legitimate sources that stand alone and I'm not sure how it could be argued otherwise. As for other sources being unreliable, well, why would you assume [[Matthew Lauder]]'s articles are not reliable? Is it because he has a vested interest in the far right movement in Canada as a researcher and activist? This sets a pretty high bar for many wikipedia articles might have trouble meeting. Finally, I wouldn't characterize editors who have worked on the Guille and CHA articles as being detractors or of having a deep-seated hatred of both; I'm sure that's not fair in most of the cases, certainly my case. I have been researching the far right in Canada for the better part of a decade. My goal in editting at wikipedia is not to libel individual and groups, but to provide a history of these individuals and groups for future research and study. Based on my knowledge, the information in both the Guille and CHA articles are accurate (although I understand why Ms. Guille, who has been brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on charges of inciting hatred through the postings on her website, would argue otherwise based on her own interests). I agree that some of the information requires better sourcing, but I believe your criteria sets the bar far too high since it could be argued that any source, be it a newspaper article, expose, court documents, etc, all have an agenda. [[User:AnnieHall|AnnieHall]] 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: Consider: Mr. Smith is a marginally-notable individual.  Mr. Jones has an axe to grind with Mr. Smith.  Mr. Jones discovers that Mr. Smith was once made bankrupt; he then digs up the court reports and creates a Wikipedia article based on the court documents.  This is original research by Mr. Jones.  It would cease to be original research if there were numerous reports in the national press discussing the singular nature of Smith's bankruptcy, and it then becomes an editorial judgement as to whether this is a ground-breaking case, whether it makes Smith notable, whether it is fit for a short para in [[bankruptcy]] and so on.  We can't really tell without independent discussion, which helps us (the non-expert editors) to assess the significance of the case.
:::: So, if you can find articles in the Canadian national press which discuss the case, and can cite them, then we can discuss that.  We can also add the court documents to allow readers to form their own view.  But we may not dig up the court records, decide as editors that this is a significant case, and start naming and shaming.  We must go back to secondary sources.  This is one of our main defences against being abused by those pursuing an agenda.  Of ''course'' you are not doing that, but the principle remains. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)



<span id="63301721982" ></span>
== THIS PAGE IS NOT COMPLETE YET!!! DO NOT EDIT IT!!!!!==

---

Which is an A1, A3, A7, G1 and probably WP:NFT since OMPHG WTF BBQ!!1!1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no other contributions and the Board Game Geek entry points to chess. Are you done wasting our time with this crap yet? Only, if you really do care, as I've said before, the place to go is CAT:CSD and review and untag improper speedies there, PROD them or take them to AfD if you prefer. You're not going to have any meaningful impact on the problem by challenging my deletion of crap like this, because there is no realistic chance these deleted articles would survive any process whatsoever, and the processes are already backlogged beyond sanity. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you really need to start using proper summaries, because you're going to get more of these questions. I untag plenty of speedies, and will continue to do so, but you're not helping the issue with how you've been doing it. If you think my preservation of content is a waste of time, there's a deeper issue here, but I don't think I need to be lectured about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only from you. And I have repeatedly suggested a much better use for your time. You will find many more to question at CAT:CSD than in my deletion log, when the toilet is blocked it does not help to require the plumber to record the use of a different tool for each turd. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's another: It's A Dog's Life/Egg Yolkeo - no context? Really? The context seemed clear in the summary you left. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, I've DRV's this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I agree that almost all of these need to die; but, I'm undecided about "transcendent figures not normally associated with popular culture", like Isaac Newton or Einstein. I suppose my reasoning is that entire books have been written about the impact these figures have had on "transforming" popular culture. I assume you'd agree that any topic that has received such scholarly interest does merit an article. Maybe that could be the criterion for a guideline disfavoring these things. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. If the article is large, and the influence on popular culture profound, this might be defensible - in the form of "Influence of foo on popular culture" - but to a good first approximation, all "in popular culture" entries are "uhuh, uhuh, I heard of this, uhuh" inna Beavis and Butthead stylee. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now listed at AFD. Since you were the one who did the original deletion, and since you were strongly for keeping the deletion, you should probably comment in the AFD. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about deleting some of the speculation immediately, but felt it best for AfD to do the work of verifying (or pruning) the article's claims. I don't think the AfD's duration is long enough for any false claims to circulate in the search engines. Anyway, I'm glad you did the editing. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know - forgive me for being a bit short, I am really not happy about the undeletion of an article where the salvageable content was so minimal. I think the only original content in there is the first sentence. I think DRV failed to note that where we have a seriously crap article on a possibly worthwhile subject, sometimes it's best to just start over. Sometimes we get that right, this time I think we didn't. Never mind. I struggle to care too much, since Guille is clearly one of those people who spends much of her life trying to persuade herself and others that she isn't really a racist, she just doesn't like people from other ethnic backgrounds. Feh. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your comment in this discussion, you noted that this discussion should be sent elsewhere. Now that the AfD has been closed, the question now is where to hold this discussion. I encourage you and the other editors (listed below) to find a suitable spot for this discussion and carry out the necessary steps for making a decision.

Perhaps this message does not make any sense whatsoever. In which case, please respond to this message and indicate what you want me (as the closing admin of the aforementioned AfD discussion) to do to carry out the result of the AfD. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c.c.: User:After Midnight, User:JzG, User:Elkman User:Dennisthe2, User:Arkyan, and User:FrozenPurpleCube.

• A mass AfD wouold be fine, they all fal precisely the same tests. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I saw that it was closed yesterday and was going to create the umbrella nom for all (52) the articles in the category, until I noticed the note from the closing admin (IanManka) suggested that AFD was not the right place. So... should I just go ahead and create the umbrella nom? or do we need additional discussion? or is there some other procedure that he is expecting of us? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a problem with a mass nom, as long as it's written well and refers to the previous one (so as to be transparent). Guy (Help!) 11:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, well I'm starting my workday now, so I'll take a crack at it tonight. If you think that you would like to take a look at it before I post it, please just respond here and I'll put it in a sandbox for you to take a peek and give any input. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, it is now done here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done. Turns out it's the tip of an even bigger iceberg! Guy (Help!) 06:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I did see the iceberg, but to change metaphors, I was trying eat the elephant properly. We'll see how this one goes and then I'll pick another logical grouping. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the joke, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, OK, I am a Bad Man and I run a Bad Railway. And actually I am sorry, it was an unworthy thing to do, plus I spoiled the joke by mis-typing it. I saved an A7 just to salve my conscience. I wasn't kidding, though - if you go through CAT:CSD and untag the salvageable and {{prod2}} the self-evident crap you will be doing the project a real favour and people might actually appreciate you. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to point out the typo, but thought better of it. Hey, I troll CAT:CSD too, don't get me wrong. I'm just focused on fixing the problems with CSD right now, and the recent films got you in my sights. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are not going to "fix" anything by looking at my reaction to vanity spammers. My reaction to vanity spammers is mine alone, and I take my lead from Brad's comments quoted above. There are fewer than 250 unique Google hits for Eric Bruno Borgman, which is under a tenth of the hits I get. I was recently asked by Chris Boardman to help prepare an article for a magazine. I neither deserve nor want to be covered by Wikipedia. Borgman deserves it less, but wants it more. Much more. To the point where he seems to have recruited some hangers on and some genuine editors to his cause. That makes him an effective vanity spammer - the worst kind. I am not one of the more trigger-happy deleters at CAT:CSD, but even if I were the problem is not the admins, it's the firehose of crap and the RC patrollers. Educate them to include better evidence in speedy nominations, restrict themselves to unambiguous cases, use WP:PROD and WP:AFD - that might make a difference. Pissing me off probably will not. I don't think I am one of the more active deleters. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think Brad really created a problem rather than a solution, so I think our goals, while similar, are diametrically opposed in execution. You're thankfully not normally the problem, which is why I'm not normally up your ass, but I don't discriminate amongst friends. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Brad was right on the money. Guy (Help!) 06:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps, but it's how I understand what's happening. There was (I'll take your word for this) a genuine attempt by one or more people to promote themselves and their films through Wikipedia. Most of the articles they created (again, I'm happy to take your word for this) were clearly unsuitable, and you and others responded, rightly, by removing them. But even a self-publicist adding lots of crap articles can add one that as a matter of fact is just about OK. My impression is that you'd become so enraged by the whole circus that you were unable or unwilling even to consider the possibility that this was so. When neutrals (like me) became involved, and looked at those one or two articles (the cream of the bunch) that should just about scrape in, they couldn't understand your position, and you couldn't understand theirs. You reacted to them as if they were either part of the plot or stupid dupes taken in by the self-publicists (neither was designed to endear you to them, of course). Their irritable response wound you up further, which irritated them more.

Am I close? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hard to say. Possibly, I suppose. There is a Borgman film, "The Deserter", that was added and deleted more times than I can remember, that certainly annoyed me a bit. But actually I really do think that Democrazy is non-notable. It is a zero-budget film starring actors who do not appear to have been paid, and it went straight to video. I am a gret fan of so-bad-they-rock films; we used to rate films at Southampton from five stars (mega-movie, kill to see) to one star (mega-dud, kill to see). I admire the work of Ed Wood. Back in the 50s there was a real bar to making a film, and to turn out endless films of truly epic badness required persistence and charm. Now, to make a straight-to-video Z-movie requires a budget of maybe a thousand bucks. It is not very hard ot recoup that through sales to the unwitting. There is, in effect, no bar. So I fall back on the Uncle G formula: has this beenthe primary subjec of multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources? Answer: no. The award? Maybe it means something, maybe it was just another bit of astoturfing. Who was the jury? Was Roger Ebert on the panel? Or Barry Norman? Or anyone else I would trust to tell a good-bad film from a simply crap film? Not recorded. I patiently reassembled a terminally souvenired print of Kelly's Heroes. I ploughed through all nine or ten reels of The Color Purple. I am not a bystander here, it's a subject that I am interested in, and of course I always have either a strong opinon or none at all. I am a typical geek in that respect. So I have no idea whether this is perosnal bias against the past spamming, or personal bias against simply crap films masquerading as awesomely terrible films. Maybe the stress level is just too high right now - I seem to have spent about $1.5m of the firm's money on toys and the kit is arriving now, so we're about to find out if I got it right or not. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: right now I can bear no man any ill-will. I am listening to Tony Halstead playing the Weber concertino, a piece of truly breathtaking virtuosity on the natural horn. I am really trying not to hope my son Michael turn out to have that much talent, because it is a precarious life, but there are wrse things in the world than to be Tony Halstead. I know nobody who has a bad word to say about him, he is a gentleman. And of course the signature on the sleeve makes it sound all the better :-) Factiod: Tony's mentor Charles Mackerras was partly responsible for Barry Tuckwell taking up the horn aged 15. I have horns on the brain :o) Guy (Help!) 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rum-ti-tum. Now playing: Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring. 'tis a gift to be simple, 'tis a gift to be free. Amen, brother. Give me a C, if you please... Guy (Help!) 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished listening to a recital by Elizabeth Batiashvili and Milana Chernyavska (Brahms, Bach, and Schubert), so I'm feeling fairly mellow myself. My nephew plays the horn (in the Essex Youth Orchestra at the moment, though he's getting a bit long in the tooth for that I think, being a fresher at University). Have you come across Tim Jackson? Young horn-player with Ensemble 360 — very good. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise the name, but I might well know the face, if he's a member of the British Horn Society. And if he's not, he should be :-) Seriously, the BHS is wonderful. Tricky instrument, the horn - and all my fault, for singing Flanders and Swann to the lad when he was in the bath as a tot. Pete plays the cello, which is not quite as beastly. Ever since he saw Steven Isserlis, Pete has refused to let us cut his hair. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, what did you sing to Pete in his bath? (It's a pity they didn't do a vocalese version of one of the Bach sonatas.) Horn and 'cello are two of my favourite orchestral instruments (though I have a sneaking preference for bass viol). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to think.....trying to think....What was my last edit to Freedom of movement? BD2412 showed me the article, and it's the latest article that I've significantly researched and tried to improve, and had fun doing. I'm pretty sure everything since then, with a few exceptions has been AFD, CSD, copyediting, warning vandals etc. You know, April 1st would be a good admin day....cascading full protection on every page of the project for 24 hours: bingo! no april fools vandalism, and we actually get to let go and enjoy ourselves for 24 hours! God wikipedia is like crack: you hate yourself for continuing to edit, but you can't stop and you have to get your fix. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While reading your note from Brad on the top of the page, I'm reminded of last week when I received a false threat from an alleged American Bar Association Media Committee member, yelling at me for deleting the ABA president's wikipedia page as copyvio. Take 30 seconds to think about that. Why would someone from the largest voluntary professional association in the world, consisting of over 400,000 lawyers, not even have the slightest concept of why we cannot host copyrighted material? Le sigh. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I was just thinking? Part of the reason that Wikipedia has so many vandals lately, is because there's not as much interest in mentoring new editors as there seemed to be a year or two ago. When I joined, admins like Killer Chihuahua, No September, yourself, BD2412, SlimVirgin, etc. were presented to me as "role models" and I should look to them for questions, and advice, and if I don't know, think about how they would edit before I brashly go off and do stuff. I think I pretty much turned out alright from that. Seems to me that new editors aren't given any role models anymore. I'm not smart enough to know how to fix that, but it's just a thought that occured to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an insightful remark. We're all so busy playing whack-a-mole these days that there is no time for much else, I think. I have an alternate account, but I hardly ever get to use it - I must uncheck "remember me" I think and spend more time without the little yellow bar lighting up. Guy (Help!) 06:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. CJCurrie 06:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting the speedy tag that User:Rkitko put on the article.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, who is Fizzleoneseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sock of? I'm in the mood for applying a {{sockpuppet|UserName|blocked}} to the user page. --Iamunknown 01:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of B-Movie Film Festival. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, really. This is really starting to worry me now. While I've seen you make some really ill-advised deletions and AfD nominations, I've never seen one like this. What were you thinking, man? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Walled gardens are a plague and hard to break down, especially once they've persuaded actual editors to help do their spamming for them. You're right, I can't recall seeing a nest of vacuous self-promotion quote this bad on Wikipedia before, although perhaps the Rikki Lee Travolta crap is pretty close. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't see a problem with your behavior right now, do you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I do see a problem with vanity spammers using Wikipedia to boost the profile of their endeavours, though. Especially when they are, like Eric Bruno Borgman, persistent about it. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, Mel Etitis has been voting keep on Legge's related articles since May 2005 and for the article that underwent DRV July 2005. Arbustoo 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep to WP:CIVIL. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When accused of running a hate campaign, it is perfectly reasonable to reply that it is bullshit. Dwain and Billions are doing a fine job of building up Legge and Borgman, but that does not actually replace sourcing as a basis for articles. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that you think that incivility is justified by another editor's saying something with which you disagree? Where do you find that in WP:CIVIL? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that his claim was bullshit. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, Guy, "bullshit" is the brown stuff that comes out of a bull's hind end; therefore, it is hard to imagine any "claim" (outside of agricultural trading) actually consisting of bullshit. ;) Seriously, though, such epithets are almost universally unhelpful. Xoloz 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I come from, bullshit is just a slang term for nonsense. Merriam-Webster seems to indicate the usage is the same both sides of the pond. {shrug} Guy (Help!) 18:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be as facetious as you like, but if you continue this sort of incivility, I'm perfectly prepared to block you for it. It's unpleasant, it unnecessarily raises the temperature of the debate, and it's against Wikipedia policy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I think your being played with. See my comments on the afd. Arbustoo 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Now that the case has closed, I would like to thank you for your support in the arbitration, which (although lenghty and bothersome) has at least closed with the ban of a disruptive editor along with an army of his socks.

If you could spare the time, I would be grateful if you could try and assist me with resolving a somewhat similar dispute. It concerns El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), whose user page, I believe, is inappropriate for much the same reasons Billy Ego's was. However, El C has flatly refused to discuss the issue. He has simply deleted all my comments on his talk page ([6], [7], [8]; see also my similar request to Seraphimblade).

At this point, I think it would be helpful if you could ask El C to talk to me about it, and possibly if you would add your own thoughts about the appropriateness of this sort of user page content. As with Seraphimblade, I am also making this request because I am thinking about opening an RfC on this issue, which requires that two users have unsuccessfully tried to resolve the dispute bilaterally. Best, Sandstein 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not bother. El_C is a prolific and respected contributor and his user page is not in any way polemical. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I disagree that a quote advocating the overthrow of parliamentary democracy is not polemical, I appreciate your assessment. Thanks. Sandstein 09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a quote from Lenin. Billy Ego's page was full of quotes from Billy Ego. Seriously, it is no big deal, the quote in context is highly unlikely to bring the project into disrepute, except amongst hardline anti-Communist zealots, and I don't actually care if they decide never to darken our doors again as that would make my life easier. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Guy. Any thoughts about the manner in which Sandstein chose to deliver his ... comparison? To save you time, let me present the timeline:

1. Sandstein, in effect, compares my userpage to Billy Ego's, writing: "I feel obliged to point out that your user page suffers of much the same defects that his did" — Billy Ego and your user page
2. I remove the comment — I am deeply offended by the purported parallels and am not interested in discussing the matter further; please refrain from commenting on my talk page in the future
3. Far from showing a great regard, or acknowledgment, to "deeply offended," Sandstein merely restores the comment(!) — restoring deleted comment, reply will follow
4. I rollback the seemingly uncaring and cold-hearted replication. — Reverted edits by Sandstein (talk) to last version by El C
5. Sandstein then add another comment about how I do not own my talk page — Your user page, again
6. I remove the comment again, telling him it was impolite of him, in light of my aforementioned feelings — restoring the comment after it was removed was impolite; please read up on WP:WQT
7. Not willing to take the ""hint,"" he adds yet another comment (about how he really wishes to discuss my userpage with me before involving the community at large) — Your user page, yet again
8. I remove it, yet again, hoping he somehow would be able to understand I.do.not.wish.to.speak.to.him — please do not place further comments on my talk page; I am not interested in speaking to you at this time
9. He finally leaves my talk page alone and goes to make the same highly offesive comparisons elsewhere.
10. None of the individuals he contacts agree to be signatory in the RfC he wished to launch about my userpage.

I argue that Sandstein has been highly provocational, and that if he truly wished to speak to me about my userpage (at some point), he would have left my talk page alone after the first time I removed his comment (telling him I found his note "deeply offensive," which he didn't even bother to address). It's really unfortunate, since right now, I'd rather leave the project a thousand times over than to ever speak to him again. El_C 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the advice of Guy I'll leave the matter alone for now. I'm just really puzzled that a long-established contributor and competent admin like El C would react with such high drama ("Oooh! He said it again!") to my polite suggestion that we discuss my contention that his user page content is in violation of Wikipedia policies. For instance, how else but through his talk page was I supposed to speak to him, and what exactly was offensive about my remarks? Anyway, I guess we all have a bad day from time to time (I sure do). I'll just forget about it. Sandstein 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, guys? Can we just assume good faith here? Sandstein saw what he perceived as a polemical user page. I don't see it as such, but I can see how it might look that way. But drawing a comparison with a user whose uncontrollable biases and rudeness (more than his user page) led to his banning, is really unhelpful and I can sympathise with El_C finding that very offensive. I believe an apology would not go amiss. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JzG. I do apologize for the length of this exchange. But I'm compelled to note my deep regret in seeing that Sandstein still continues to act in what I percieve to be a provocational manner, with "high drama" innunedo, and so on. I really wish he'd exercize greater restraint and aim at utmost moderation. There was, indeed, better ways to take issue with my userpage than comparing it to the userpage of a fascist, and it is profoundly puzzling that Sandstein lacked the basic intuition to realize this; not to mention forcing comments on my talk page when I made it clear I had no intention of speaking to him. The entire incident reflects very poorly on him. El_C 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not mean to imply any similarities in the conduct of Billy Ego (the disruptive sockmaster) and El C, who by all accounts is a distinguished member of our community. I apologise if my comments were taken that way. However, I do contend that with regards to the content of the user pages, there are parallels, and I regret that we have not been able to engage in a calm discussion about it. Both user page approvingly feature quotes by dictators (i.e., Lenin and Hitler/Mussolini), both pages also feature the appropriate large-scale propaganda photographs, and both pages are generally made up as a shrine to the respective totalitarian ideology. I agree that reasonable people may disagree about this assessment, but I did hope we could at least talk about it. Sandstein 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I should not be forced to engage in polemics with and respond to the dubious ideological comparisons of Sandstein (or anyone). If he wishes for his userpage to reflect Swiss neutrality with all that that entails, or whatever, that's his prerogative. El_C 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The images of Guevara and Lenin adorned enough student walls when I was growing up that I find it hard to consider them offensive. And the quote from Lenin is pretty understated. What would Sandstein think of me quoting Churchill, I wonder? Or any other of the interesting views on democracy and government expressed by significant historical figures?

• Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay. (Shelley)
• An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger. (Confucius)
• The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away. (Ronald Reagan)
• Government of the busy by the bossy for the bully. (Arthur Seldon on capitalism)
• Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. (Winston Churchill)

I could go on. There is a difference between a person living in a democratic country but noting the problems with the democratic system, through the words of a historical figure, and openly advocating the economics of some of the most despised totalitarian states in history. I don't think quoting Stalin advocates the overthrow of democracy. And let's not forget than when asked what he thought of Western civilisation, Gandhi said "I think it would be a very good idea". So, let's draw a distinction between a single quote from a respected editor and outright polemic from an unrepentently tendentious editor. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. We'll have to agree to disagree on that account. I think any of the above quotes would not be prone to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, but I guess experience will have to tell us whether or not El C's user page is. As I said, I'll drop the issue for now. Sandstein 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with the for now; how ominous... El_C 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Guy. Ticket#: 2007041010008042 makes mention of you several times... It's a very difficult ticket to dissect, but it contains big heavy words like "libel" and "slander" so I thought you should know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. The word "incoherent" springs to mind. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I think I addressed what the concern was about... we'll see I guess. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further proof Gastrich has no life.[9] Wikidash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This new user seems to know about WP:BITE, and Gastrich's posts. That new user wants critical material removed regarding a religious school. You are mentioned on that page as well. Arbustoo 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JzG

I was very disappointed to discover that my page on VEGF Trap had been deleted by you on April 15, under the criterion "advertisement". It was not an advertisement, but an updated scientific article on a molecule that is not even yet commercialized. I spent hours writing it. It is more updated than the article on this molecule produced by the firm that develops it. To consider this as "advertisement" would lead to delete all the articles in Wikipedia dealing with specific molecules, and there are thousands, and very useful. It is even less "blatant advertisement" : Blatant advertising : Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion,

as there is no, in my opinion, inappropriate content, I would be very honored if you would reconsider my article. It is my wish to go on providing Wikipedia with many articles on biotech medicines, as that is what I am specialized in. I don't mind submitting them to you or other administrators. I understand that your role is to protect the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. Please understand I am not part of the scourges, and eventually able to lend you a helping hand in my field of expertise. May I add that I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, and plead indulgence.

Best regards,

Tony Marcel, MD, PhD marcel.tony@orange.fr

• "VEGF Trap is a therapeutic fusion protein manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. It is a potent inhibitor of VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor)and as such is ongoing clinical trials in cancer and in ARMD(adult retinal macular degeneration)." And so on. Come back when the trials are done and we can validate the claims from reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I would like to ask your advice on something... WP:PNSD has been protected for two weeks now, and based on the talk page most people seem agreed on how to move ahead. But I fear that if I were to request unprotection this would simply lead to another tag war with the people who want the page gone, resulting in yet another protection. Any suggestions on how to handle this would be most welcome; perhaps we simply should employ {{editprotected}} a lot? Thanks, >Radiant< 15:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is very important. My article crearly states that clinical trials are ongoing. If you decide that Wikipedia can only mention drugs whose claims are validated, you will have to suppress a few thousand entries: all those concerning drugs that are not EMEA/FDA approved. But describing only approved drugs considerably reduces the scope of Wikipedia, and would reduce it medically speaking to a PDR. The issue is not making false allegations (I have made none). Your "come back when we can validate the claims" is contradictory with my text that specifies that the drug is in phase II. Therefore no claim can be "validated" for years. If patients asked whether or not they wish to enter a trial could consult Wikipedia, it might not be so bad. If there is a pharmacologist or person from FDA or EMEA among your administrators, it might be interesting to ask him his opinion. Please give this a thought.

All the best,

Tony

• Wikipedia articles must be neutral, attributable to reputable sources and demonstrate notability. At this stage of development I don't see how a brand-name drug will fit these policies; the sole source of information at this stage is the manufacturer. Drugs can fail during clinical trials. Overall, we need to wait, I think, until we have a wider base of more neutral material on which to draw. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy,

Thanks for helping me around. I do understand your reservations and will not persist on this specific article. The problem with VEGF Trap is that it has not been given an INN (international non proprietary name) like most drugs in clinical trials, so it looks like a brand name drug although it is not yet ! I will try to avoid such situations in the future. I will concentrate more on pharmacological families (like anti EGFRs, where you have 5 or 6 different drugs, if not more), and if drugs are still in trials, I will add something like "claims have not been validated by regulatory authorities". This latter intention holds mainly for stubs, because on one hand Wikipedia is calling for help, and on the other I do not want to induce unnecessary hopes.

Have a nice evening,

Tony

Mangojuice nominated it for deletion. I don't know how closely you're paying attention to the guideline pages at this point, so I figured I'd let you know since you created it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech shootings. Perp: unknown. Weapons: unknown. Number of victims: unknown. Motive: unknown. Why we have an article when nothing is know: unknown. Why someone has once again mistaken Wikipedia for Wikinews: unknown. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because at least this way we have an article on it, before the WikiVandals come in and do it for us? I agree though, I wish there was a 48 hour cool off period after an event before an article can be written about it, just to avoid this kind of thing. SirFozzie 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect: "Wikinews has an article on this subject". Protected. Job done. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how many pages will you have to create that to cover everything? Look at the move history of that page, that was on five/six titles. And I'm sure that 10-20 more could have been created easily. Eh. After the reaming I just took on WT:BLP about Burntsauce, don't expect me to do anything controversial if following the policies as written gets you told "to get off your ass" and do something. SirFozzie 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truthteller86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first ever edit was to revert material. Second edit was to insert it again. Third ever, was on the talk asking why I called the edit vandalism.[10] The funny thing, I never said anything about vandalism. Arbustoo 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not SYSIS or Gastrich. I have evidence that it is another banned user. We'll see if he wants to be honest. Arbustoo 01:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is blocked. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthteller86 for details. Arbustoo 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't confirmed they are the same. Though their edits are the same. Sorry, about my careless wording. Arbustoo 17:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser is worth having, but this is a job for the duck test. Quack, quack. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is asking for an unblock. Arbustoo 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you decided that Australian Forces Mod needed to be deleted, and that it wasn't up for debate. You have stated A7 (no assertion of notability) as appropriate grounds for speedy deletion, so would you care to be specific so we can work towards the page being restored? How many sources would be required for the article to be restored? (it has been in at least 1 reputable publication, PC PowerPlay)

For the record, I am a part of the development team for the project, and it was one of my colleagues that put the page up in the first place. I was intending to edit the page to be more of a neutral POV than the, frankly, bias page that was there.(he's not that savvy with wikipedia so he just copied text from the readme file for the mod and thought that'd be ok)

That said, it seemed a bit premature to have the article deleted on the spot without even giving anyone a chance to post up some sources rather than just putting it up for deletion. I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of the wikipedia system, but I do think the page was hard done by...

I look forward to hearing from you, and hope this can be resolved in a civil manner.

Cheers, BrotherEstapol 10:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You will probably be wasting your time. Individual mods are rarely significant enough to be discussed outside the main article on the game. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the filer forgot to notify you (pgk noted this a while ago, but I didn't parse it out properly).

An editor has asked for a deletion review of No Reservations (film). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• ZIP Drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just trying to understand why you deleted it and how this article is different from the ones about Walgreens, Eckerd etc. I specifically put it into company profile section not as a news article. There was no advertising in it other than basic information about the company similiar to all other company profiles.

Your response is appreciated.

• No assertion of notability, created by single purpose account [user:Zipdrugs]], and we don't have "company profiles" we have encyclopaedia articles about notable companies. Guy (Help!) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you've been involved in blocking or unblocking Tobias Conradi during the past six months or so, I'm making this courtesy edit on your talk page to notify you that there has recently been an inconclusive community sanction discussion, and I have taken this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look back at the deletion discussion about Aluka? I am not sure if I am writing to the right place and what is the next step... Olyashok 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Tollyburkan (talk · contribs) is adding himself and his institute to the page. I have repeatedly warned this user to avoid this conflict of interest.[11][12]

He offers no knowledge of physics, and his webpage is commerical in nature.

I have really cut him come slack: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolly Burkan. Firewalking is based on simple science; nothing supernatural or $15,000 worth of training.

Please give this user some friendly recommendations. Arbustoo 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]