Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:JzG

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:28, 20 January 2022 (Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

de:Benutzer Diskussion:JzG

JzG essay

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Me_and_Wikipedia

Don't let the trolls push you out of here. We need you.--MONGO 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Guy, for that excellent essay.
Don't let the bastards grind you down. Cheers, CWC 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent essay. Please come back when you've cleared your head. . --Tbeatty 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, excellent essay. I agree with almost all your points, but - mostly, as technicality - I disagree with 'The Wild West'. I believe there are hundreds of millions of articles we are still missing :). PS. You know, I am stalked by my own 'Rfwoolf'. And the ArbCom has done nothing to stop him. I do wonder if such users will bring the project down... PS2. Please come back, don't leave us, yadda yadda - we had our differences but I believe we need people like you in the project. Hope to see you around,-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you restore the 7000+ edits to your talk page? As you've returned to editing, it really should not stay deleted. Natalie 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Addiction to editing on Wikiulosia will likely cause the loss of job and family. The "me disease" is harmful. 59.151.29.136 14:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I totally *get* where you are coming from, but, selfishly, I will MISS YOU around... --Zeraeph 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletions...

(I hope I type in this correctly in the correct space without deleting anything) Well I have not written it myself, since I'm not neutral perhaps, but I asked for my friends to open an account an I started to wirte something but that was deleted, an then I asked for professional help. Of course writing about family is a bad idea, but is it forbidden? And regarding the deletion of a talk page today that WAS a misstake, I have problem with my connection and I typed while the test was marked and I couldn't restore. OK, sorry, is that fixed?? I just kindly ask you to help me to keep the pages (two of those that we are debating), I have collected so much info to my friends who have helped me and anyone else can offcourse change the page if you like!!--NGL 14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs)

Oops

I didn't see your edits, until I went through them again. Well, I'm deleting all Bold textthe external links until it can be figured out what is going on, and until notability for the individual articles established. I think the individual articles should just be speedied. KP Botany 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, joy, joy!!!

Truly happy to see you back and supplying your usual straight talk. ;-) Take care, FloNight 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, rock on! Pete.Hurd 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ditto! Singularity 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished your redux for you

You probably lost interest, but just in case This is finished and sorted. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Hi JzG, Glad to see you are back! While I realize that this may not be the best time for this, and the personal pain that this page has caused you, there is an WP:SPA running amok on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine making personal attacks and generally making a mess of the article. I tried the ArbCom enforcement board, but an admin was unwilling to block as the WP:SPA has made a few minor edits (mostly unnecessary capitalization or wikilinks) in other articles. As you are very familiar with the editing history of the page, I would be very interested to have your opinion on it, however, I would understand if you do not wish to visit this page again. Thanks, Leuko 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Leuko 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, JzG. I noticed that you placed a full-protection template on the page, however the page is only semi-protected. I would endorse full protection to put an end to this counter-productive edit-warring. Thanks, Leuko 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clue deficiency. Fixed now. Frankly I think the project would be better off if that article were a lot shorter. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack targeting you

Toomas Hendrik Ilves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) made a personal attack targeting you in the now deleted article JzG. I thought that you would like to know about this in case this user is stalking you and you did not know about it. This user also wrote another attack article on another administrator in the now deleted article Moreschi. Jesse Viviano 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I make you distressed with the above notice, but I feel that administrators should stick together and help each other withstand trolls. By the way, due to the attacks, this account now has a final warning regarding attacks. Jesse Viviano 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this troll is indef blocked by someone else. Jesse Viviano 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could also have been username blocked. No biggie, though, just a garden-variety troll. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarian Movement

Dont agree with your claim that protestant is the same as sectarian. Two completely different things.BigDunc 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The THF thing

Guy, I think you have done a good job of remaining neutral and fair in this dispute, and I will go out on a limb and say THF would agree. Would you be willing to open an ArbCom case to iron this out? I don't think it would be a good idea for either THF or myself to do it, because I think neither of us has the ability to present the questions posed in a productive manner. --David Shankbone 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know me but...

Hello JzG, SheffieldSteel has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Welcome back

Welcome back! I hope that your WikiBreak was enjoyable/restful/(insert other adjective as appropriate : )

Whether I may or may not agree with your opinion in any specific instance is immaterial (though imo, I think you do try to be fair). Imho I think you (among many others) do a necessary, but often underappreciated, set of tasks around here, and it's nice to see you "back at it". : )

I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


fring

hi there

as per your comment in the afd "Delete on balance, I think. The content is advertorial in style, and the references all appear to be traceable back to press releases and other non-independent sources. I don't think this is making its mark, and I suspect that the article is part of a campaign to fix that. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)"

The idea of this article is to educate people. Please help me edit the article so that it is not advertising. I don't understand what you mean about the references, also what is the difference between the fring article and the skype, Pidgin IM, ICQ, twitter and Googletalk articles, the list is endless. I used those articles as samples when making the fring article, so if fring goes then the others must also go must'nt they?

now i am confused please help me. Thanx simon Goplett 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, you'd need to pick someone who actually cares about that product. All I see is something being promoted on Wikipedia, and I'm not big on that. Comparison with massive global players like Skype and ICQ is unhelpful - a bit like asking that your garage band be included because we have an article on The Beatles. You need to find substantial critical (as in analytical) editorial comment about the company, not mere reprints of press releases. A writeup of the company in one of the major business magazines is always a good place to start. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you at least tell me what is viewed as advertising in the article so I can remove that text.

mmm so if I understand you correctly if fring becomes a massive global player then they can get to advertise on wiki like Skype and ICQ? Either the article is an advert or it isnt, even global players like skype and ICQ can't have advertising space?? or am i wrong. The article is not intended as advertising! fring is a global player in over a 150 countries, may i ask what defines a global player? Please help me not to loose my confidence in wikipedia. It seems to me that even if there is no advertising in the article they will still delete it. Goplett 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Welcome back.

Thanks for your support at WP:AN/I. I was, in fact, wrong about the specific incident that set me off, but right on the generalities of the situation and -- I'm glad to hear you say -- right, essentially, on the policy issue. I'd give you one of Raul's Common Sense Bricks, but I don't feel comfortable giving out someone else's barnstars, and besides, you already have one, it looks like.

As I said at WP:AN/I, NeutralHomer doesn't seem able to track subtlety very well, so I don't know whether it will do any good or whether he will fall back on the vaguely conspiratorial language he resorts to when I'm not summarily banned from Wikipedia on his say-so. I know which way to bet, though.

Again, thank you, and welcome back. --Calton | Talk 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well

Hi,

Since you've directly rebuffed personal dialog, I will be moving the article back to mainspace for the duration of DRV, as I feel your move was improper, and you have chosen not to offer an explanation. I request that you do not blank this message (actually, I'd like you to restore my other one too) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did offer an explanation (at DRV). I'm not opposed to dialogue, but I don't see that spreading it to multiple venues helps much. I am not very active right now, and didn't see much point. I also want to avoid the vast talk pages that I have historically had, they don't load on my Blackberry and take months to load over 3G. Nothing personal, you understand. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I gladly accept your explanation, I was on the verge of taking it personally for a minute there! :) I really never understand when people blank individual messages off their userpages, especially if the message expresses a concern over a prior lack of communication. Anyway, I hope my explanation at the DRV meets your satisfaction, because the course of action I pursued was quite typical. Perhaps, being less active, one might find it even more prudent to consult with others, more involved in a given set of circumstances, before assuming that "something is fishy". Just a suggestion for the future. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Good to see you back in the saddle. Illegitimi non carborundum. Raymond Arritt 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - good to see you back. Orderinchaos 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for correcting me on the GFDL thing. I was thinking that it didn't matter if the stuff was copied back to the creator's userspace, but you're absolutely right, your way makes more sense. VigilancePrime has the makings of a great contributor to our community, and I would like to mentor him/her past any inadvertant mistakes; I have to admit that Calton's rude messages on that talk page raised my hackles, because I don't want to lose a productive member due to something stupid and unnecessary. Thanks again. Respectfully - Videmus Omnia Talk 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem, VigilancePrime's error was small but worth correcting, I'm sure he won't do it again. He also needs to remove the laundry list of vandals from his user page. I'm not being drawn on Calton. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Thanks for the advice, I will follow it. I haven't been sure how much of a case to build at this point, so I have focused on generalities with a few diffs. If I have been going about it wrong at this point, let me know, because I can supply ample diffs, although I figured since the case has not proceeded it would be better to wait until it does. --David Shankbone 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP issue

An AfD was put up[1] by a relatively new contributor, Ontheveldt (talk · contribs · logs), as his 3rd contribution to en.Wikipedia. His second contribution to Wikipedia was to create the category, People from Middletown, Ohio,[2] Dr Jan Adams' hometown. However, instead of immediately adding Dr Jan Adams to this category, he immediately nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion. I suspect this is personal between Ontheveldt and Dr Jan Adams, however, I'm on wiki-break, and if you or someone watching your talk page, would monitor this situation if something more develops, I would appreciate it? Yes, yes, I know everyone is thinking, "Damn, Ontheveldt is more wikipedia savvy in just 2 edits than KP Botany will ever be." Be that as it may, BLPs and agendas don't mix well on Wikipedia. Thanks. KP Botany 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

Good to see you again! >Radiant< 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! William Pietri 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another strange article

After the COI post at WP:AN, I thought I'd point out Malie Hidarnejad to you. What do you make of that? Carcharoth 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resolved

hi I noticed on my complaint about user MJis4freaks you have "resolved" it, how? I cant see anything on his user page. Let me no. Realist2 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user thinks that there should be a Blocked section on his userpage or have one of those indefinitely blocked templates on his/her userpage (like {{Banned user}}). x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Just a note...you told VigilancePrime that Calton is an "experienced administrator". No, he isn't, actually. He's not an admin. And isn't that the MOST important thing on Wikipedia? That the information is correct, no matter how you go about wording it or how rude you are when you say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:CyclePat

Just a notification that not only hasn't he given up, he seems determined to escalate things. Note your name on the case. --Calton | Talk 11:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, just out of courtesy, I'm letting you know that I put an RFArb in for CyclePat as you suggested to do so, but as you're named as a party, you may still wish to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#CyclePat. Best of luck :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, thanks. Needs to be sorted once and for all, I think. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination)

Er, forget something? --Calton | Talk 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, SqueakBox 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way in hell it should be deleted in my opinion, Guy, looking at the last just about unanimous AfD to keep, but I'll sit back now that I've commented and tag the SPA's as they appear (one already, what's the over/under, 5, 10?) SirFozzie 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No real opinion, Murphy asked so I passed it on, which is only fair after all. Guy 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.81.203 (talk)

Guy, I really wish you'd simply let Don Murphy sue for Libel. He's unlikely to have a case, and we could use some precedent. Further, the incredibly contentious nature of his entire presence as a pair of words anywhere on Wikipedia's already resulted in the loss of H, after threats. I don't know why the OFFICE chickened out back then, except that H's leaving meant the issue was 'settled', but really, this is above the pay grade of all the volunteers here. That said, if there's a deletion, which looks unlikely, please salt the earth there, so we can simply avoid this ever again. ThuranX 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proms

Went to the proms today - Beethoven, Brahms, surprise extra the Academic Festival Overture, saw Joanna Lumley, met Richard Stilgoe and ran into a friend from the horn society. Good evening out! Guy 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-help on help page

Hi, while glancing at your help page, I noticed a section at the end that does not look like it belongs there, but rather somewhere else. Check it out. Jjamison 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Welcome back, Guy!!! -- Avi 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm slow on the uptake. -- Avi 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich's latest petition

It is my belief that some of the sock puppets aren't Gastrich. I have reason to believe that User:Hugo the Hippo is a sock puppet of banned user User_talk:Bible John. This in no way excuses Gastrich's behavior, and in fact given his history the accusation is justified, but pointing out that his claim that he is being framed isn't entirely false. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And it's my belief that some of them are - and in any case it doesn't matter. There are two things Gastrich wants: to promote Gastrich, and to promote his agenda. Neither of those is compatible with policy. He is incapable fo editing within policy, he misperceives his own bias as neutrality, and I would be staggered if any other admin who has dealt with him would give you any answer other than "hell no!" Guy (Help!) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Special Barnstar
To Guy: For his administrative actions in the most recent Gastrich affair, showing patience, objectivity, fairness, and understanding of all related issues. - Nascentatheist 05:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDMA

Why did you delete the PDMA article? Nzgabriel 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You note that you believe I am connected with the PDMA organisation which is untrue [3]. Nzgabriel 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did, first time (I believe I found the link at WP:COIN). This time I did not. But that is not relevant. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proab

Hi JzG,

I didn't remove the notice. I archived it because it was fully addressed + there is no reason to insist in shouting personal information on the streets. Nothing is achieved by your revert of mine [4]. --Aminz 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for your response JzG. Please discuss it in the talk page of the relevant page where I opened a section explaining my edit. --Aminz 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you've been waiting for a whole 20 minutes at 8:30am my local time, which time I spent getting ready for work. The issue is not "addressed", it is a notice of an arbitration enforcement. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, you blocked Proab because you wanted for people to see his personal identity for 24 hours. [5] "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". You even opposed its archival. [6] even after the issue was discussed by Arbcom members and Morven wrote a summary of the discussion. I'll leave the issue. The notice is there. Enjoy it! --Aminz 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into it more since then. The original thing that was removed was a complaint with diffs and links that was problematic. Morven's notice was a factual statement with no external links. If people have a problem with this then they need to take it up with the arbitrators. I am not comfortable with multiply-blocked edit warriors removing this or any other arbitration notice. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove it. I archived it because the case was brought to the attention of the committee and as a result Proab was placed on probation. That's it. The rest is your desire for "people to see it". To let them know of the personal identity of a wikipedia user. That was the logic behind your block: "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". Proab had only informed the Office, one arbitrator and a number of admins. He hadn't informed all arbitrators and admins; and that was certainly his error, but maybe he couldn't have informed "all" admins because someone was about to reveal his identity.
JzG, I am a human being and as much as you are, having a physical brain working in a similar way as yours. I come here with my arguments not with my personality or my contribution list or others. Please comment on the statements, not on the editors. --Aminz 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:AE post was drawing this to the attention of the wider community. Above all, the problem is entirely of Proabivouac's own making - he did not have to evade his ArbCom sanctions and he did not have to go straight back to the same problematic behaviour. I have asked ArbCom to clarify. Now drop it. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Proab acted incorrectly is clear. Yes, at times he may have shown problematic behaviour but this doesn't justify a straight generalization. He is a generally good and smart editor and I think there are many many editors on wikipedia who will agree with me.
Thanks for asking for clarification from ArbCom. It is none of business anyways. Peace :) --Aminz 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ye,s it is ArbCom's business, and they can make the call. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject, is there any paticular reason the block isnt quite considerably long because of his use of sockpuppets to evade the sanctions? Or is arbcom dealing? ViridaeTalk 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are free to block him for longer, I guess. I don't think what he did was especially bad, but causing drama is only likely to draw more attention to the thing he'd rather hide. It's fine for an editor to change accounts to protect their real-world identity, but it's not fine for them to change accounts in order to evade a sanction. It's fine to change accounts to distance oneself from past misdeed,s, it's not fine to do it in order to distance oneself from the consequences of such misdeeds and thereby gain time to carry on the same problem behaviour. I'm undecided about whether Proabivouac is a net positive to the project. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac has been the target of sustained harassment, some from pov warriors and some from banned users running socks. In spite of it he does a lot of good scholarly work on some difficult pages, and makes a significant positive contribution. More than most editors, people of differing views recognize the value of his work. Tom Harrison Talk 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take your word on that. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome (XM)

I have noticed you have deleted the channel page a second time after having a stub tag placed on the page. I do not know your definition of content-free, but that page does have information on it that is of value. If you disagree with this, please expand the page with more content or ask other editors to edit the page before outright deleting the page. TravKoolBreeze 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chrome (XM). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TravKoolBreeze 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO)

On 9/7 you deleted these three entries: Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO). After reading your cited justification for the deletion, we've discovered that there are some footnotes that referenced press releases and the company website that, while common in other notable corporate profiles, did indeed violate the terms of the policy and will be revised or deleted. Aside from those points, the entries did not contain promotional language and there was strict adherence to referencing third party sources for every factual claim, including Forbes, the NY Times and the Financial Times. As a corporation, Travelport exceeds the criteria for being noteworthy in the context of companies listed on the Wikipedia "List of American Companies" with 2006 revenue of $2.6 billion, approx. 7,500 employees and operations in 145 countries. The company is also an important part of the Orbitz and Blackstone stories, both of which recently became public companies. In addition to his relevance to Travelport, Jeff Clarke was also an integral part of one of the largest mergers in the history of the PC industry (HP/Compaq). References for these types of claims were included in the original entries.

Were there any other problems with the entries other than what was outlined in CSD G11? Since the basic criteria for Wikipedia content appears to have been met, I'd like to take your feedback and improve the entries. TP kelli 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hampl, Punto, Leutgeb ...

Hello. Thank you for your greetings. Sorry, because my english is also "not up to this". I'm a Horn player als amateur but i'm interrestet in history of horn and of horn players like Hampl etc. So i wish you, to make no "kikser" on your horn. --- 217.233.122.176 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.122.176 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorized Bicycles

Thanks for your help pruning the external links on the Motorized bicycles page! Your help is very... helpful! Fbagatelleblack 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were wondering...

...this is typical behaviour of this user when interacting with others, as summarized here. Icemuon 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Magazine deletion

I would like to know why the page for Republic Magazine was deleted. This was the answer YOU gave: (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising Bi-monthly, started in July? That's, what, two or three issues so far? No chance.)

What dont you understand about the term "bi-monthly"?? Bi-monthly is EVERY TWO MONTHS. The first issue came out in July and was for "July/August", the 2nd issue is out NOW and is for "September/October". There is only TWO issues in existence, July/August and September/October. Bi-monthly-----> every TWO months, not bi-weekly, which is twice a month. Did you think I was referring to bi-weekly? You must have. I would like the page back up. I dont appreciate you just deleting it without being warned. If I was warned, I could have told you the meaning of the term "bi-monthly" in advance.

I dont even understand your reason why it was deleted. You said "started in July? thats, what, two or three issues so far? no chance". I dont even understand that. How many issues did you think there should have been since July? If it was bi-weekly that would mean about 5 issues would exist. If it was monthly, about 3 issues would exist. I did not say how many issues were in existence on the page. I just mentioned underneath the picture of the magazine with Ron Paul on it that it was the 2nd issue----which was CORRECT, since the 2nd issue is for September/October. What exactly did you not understand? Im not trying to be smartassed---I really dont know what you misinterpreted. Please put the page back up, because if it's not, I will know it was removed out of biased reasons. I'm a writer, I will do a story on wikipedia's blatant censorship if it's not restored. I will have the proof, so it wont be libel. 24.170.225.64 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an encycloapedia. It exists to document that whicih is already verifiably significant, not promote that which people hope one day will be. Political activist magazines are a dime a dozen, and this one only just shipped its second issue. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the reverts and re-reverts?

Eeeek. Whats going on, Guy? Rockpocket 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was kinda wondering too ... - Alison ☺ 08:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! I know what that's like. 1:30am here and I'm stuck in work. Get some sleep, the two of you! :) - Alison ☺ 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
09:29 here, and into the second cup of coffee - I'll be awake Real Soon Now. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. No worries. I just thought for a moment the troll had cloned your account somehow and was carrying on his revert spree. At this time of night anything seems possible! Rockpocket 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Daddy M

Regarding this, who did you suspect him of being? Just curious, but his tone is very much alike to this guy's, not to mention the fact that this is another editor who wars for no reason and edits Wrestling-related and comic-related articles. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no harm, there's no further evidence to support this theory anyway. Sorry for the inconvenience. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Merge

You may be interested in Talk:California Biblical University and Seminary#Merge proposal. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Question

I noticed you made a deletion related to this. Didn't know if you wanted to reply to it or not. Just a heads up more than anything. Have a great day. ^demon[omg plz] 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem. I always think "I nuked it" looks less than caring in these circumstances, but it's what it needed; better to say "it has been deleted as failing blah blah" and have it come from an independent individual, IMO. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, keep it up

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For detecting and quashing racist propaganda in Wikipedia. TeaDrinker 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for RfA support and a question

Thanks very much for your support in my recently successful RfA. I appreciated your comment!

Since you seem to be online, I just blocked WillyOffOfWheels (talk · contribs) with account creation disabled as a meme of the infamous WillyOnWheels. [7] Is this appropriate? The guy's feigning ignorance on his talk page. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edgarde/IPC

DGG is being commendably considerate of the right to vanish, but actually this is a subpage and is GFDL'd so I've restored it and moved it ot User:Edgarde/IPC for you. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super duper! This is everything I would have asked for if I thought I could have it. Thank you a lot. / edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, JzG. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Usual crap"

Do you really think "usual crap" is a civil way to conduct a discussion? Kappa 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depends. If it's the owner of a website whose article has been deleted coming up with the usual crap about how if we have an article on Facebook then we should have an article on every single social networking site in the known universe, then yes. Actually if they came here themselves I'd just tell them to fuck off. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Craig

I'm wondering why you removed the infobox from his article. He is, after all, a convicted criminal, and there's no question of this being a BLP issue - U.S. senators are clearly public figures whose criminal behaviour should be publicly reported. FCYTravis 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{infobox criminal}} is for people who are first and foremost criminals, as I understand it. But mainly it was about the image, which existed primarily to disparage the subject. I just removed the lot since we already have an appropriate infobox on that page. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I restored the image, because... we don't speedily delete things which are "disparaging" if they may be encyclopedically relevant to the article subject. We're not talking about Brian Peppers here, we're talking about a U.S. senator. I find it a very arguable point that a U.S. senator's police mugshot may be quite relevant to an article about a U.S. senator who is now embroiled in a major scandal relating to his criminal activities. That's a discussion worth having, and I don't know which way I fall just yet, but I don't think it should be speedied. FCYTravis 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dispute your contention that a mugshot image is in and of itself unbalanced and disparaging. If placed in proper context, it is part of a balanced encyclopedia biography. A page consisting of nothing but a mugshot and "OMG CRIMINAL" would fit CSD G10, but this is not that. FCYTravis 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things I hate about WP:BLP no. 7: it forces us to take a cautious approach and defend people who are, in real life, indefensible. We already have a picture, we know what he looks like. We have citations for the events. We don't need a mugshot to drive home, in your words, "OMG! CRIMINAL!" It adds nothing other than a gleeful celebration of his misfortune. Proverbs 1:26 is a lesson in life for bigots everywhere but a poor practice on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians

[8] Is this the sort of thing you were hoping for at Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians? If I'm on the right track, i'll continue, if not, please clarify. ThuranX 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anything that replaces the crap with cited and neutral content (read: hopefully dry enough to drive off the whack-jobs but interesting enough to keep anyone who is serious about the subject proper) is good. Please do carry on. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knocked out 8K of uncited crap, a serious amount of COATRACKing, some areas where there was actual promotion of steroetypes, etc., etc. I'm off for some friday night time, but take a look and let me know what you think, perhaps on the talk page there? ThuranX 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

finished my run through the article. It's 11K shorter, I dropped almost anytthign I saw as unsourced and promoting or just stating a stereotype without review or citaiton in its' section, and so I think it's a stronger article. If it needs moer work, I would appreciate the guidance... ThuranX 04:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYLT

Would you please elaborate on the {{accuracy}} tag just applied to National Youth Leadership Training. It is difficult to fix what we don't know is wrong. Thanks. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I figure you are the middleman between this and OTRS. I think we have been here before. BTW- {{accuracy}} redirects to {{disputed}}. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlight me

Wondering why you just deleted my article on Sigrid Lidströmer. You wrote "lacks significans". So you think she wasn't significant? Since you must know a lot about this - in what way was she unimportant? I'd like to learn that. My ears are open... 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Angry Nintendo Nerd

Since Angry Video Game Nerd is now a protected redirect to ScrewAttack, I had the thought that Angry Nintendo Nerd might do well as a protected redirect too. I'm checking with you because you were the last admin to deal with it. Whaddaya think? --UsaSatsui 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sigrid Lidströmer

Hello. You speedied Sigrid Lidströmer, saying that the article did not assert significance.

The article is very messy and does not seem to assert major significance. However, it does seem to assert minor significance, indeed, quite a lot more significance than that of many pop singers and Pokemon who are lovingly written up in this "encyclopedia". As I've mentioned here, I don't see it as speediable material and I urge you to restore it. -- Hoary 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, it appears that Hoary's account has been hijacked, as he's arguing for keeping an article. I thought she was the translator? KP Botany 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been precedents. -- Hoary 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel an admin has done you wrong, try talking to them. Nicely. I don't merely "feel" but rather I think that you did wrong to Sigrid Lidströmer, an article that was mediocre, perhaps AfD-worthy, but not obviously speedy-worthy. Niceness is hardly my forte, but I'll try: Please undelete this, and, if you wish, take it to AfD. Thank you. -- Hoary 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. No reply, so I moved what was in a scratchpad page of the writer to Sigrid Lidströmer. Of course you're free to AfD it, but I think you'll agree that it's hardly speediable. -- Hoary 12:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was a translator. She translated some stuff. Some of this stuff had not been translated before. She corresponded with the author of at least some of the stuff she translated. All we need now is a claim of encyclopaedic notability and we're away. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think the subject is short on notability, you are of course very free to send the article to AfD. The steps involved are rather tiresome, of course; so as a gesture of amicability or whatever I'll even send it to AfD for you, if you ask me to. -- Hoary 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Issue

Is there anything you can do about this editor's rants on the Anna Wilding talk page? User:Real77? He claims he represents Ms. Wilding, but all I can think is I sure as hell hope not, for her sake, since I don't have a serious grudge against her (unlike my grudge against User:Hoary). I've asked User:Acalamari to assist with editing the page, but Real77 is chasing all the good editor's away, and no one can get in there to edit. In addition to which the talk page is a stream of indecipherable rants. My concern now is that the talk page looks like such a piece of ranting shit that it will ultimately reflect poorly upon Ms. Wilding and the article as part of its permanent history. I feel this is a legitimate concern, although an unusual one, for a BLP, that an editor claims to be representing the subject of the article, but is indirectly, by their actions, trashing the hell out of the person. It is extremely difficult to impress anything upon this editor, Real77, because of what appears to be a serious English language barrier. I don't know what's going on, but I don't think editors should have unlimited rights to make a living person look like shit on Wikipedia, even if they really are representing them. KP Botany 06:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the IPs are his, also. And he refers to himself oddly in the first person plural all of the time, having various excuses for this, "my wife is in the room," and "it's none of your business," being two I vaguely recall.
KP Botany 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nice, he just made a legal threat.[11] KP Botany 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg

You were invloved in the deletion of the image now being addressed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:Larry_Craig_mugshot.jpg. Please consider participating in that discussion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. →Lwalt ♦ talk 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome (XM)

Now why on earth did you delete this page 3 times. It is not a7, so I don't know where you got that idea and it is definitley not a G11. Perhaps you don't remember what an a7 is. An a7 is a tag for a blatant advertisement of a product or service. Now was that really an advertisement? No. Every other damn page for an XM channel has not been deleted. You might as well just add XM tags to the other 120 XM Channel pages on Wiki. Perhaps semi-protecting it, but you trying to get that blocked is wrong. Obviously you have no clue as to the policies that have been set fourth here, and i strongly suggest you be instructed in the proper mode of editing wikipedia. I'm contacting a few more administrators.--NightRider63 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm just wondering how often I'm going to have to say this. It was an article that did not assert notability (WP:CSD#A7). It said this is one of the brands of XM (on which we have an article), I'd have redirected it only nobody but us refers to it as Chrome (XM), that was a made-up title. I put the link to XM Satellite Radio into Chrome, the disambiguation page. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaDefender

Actually, a reliable source isn't as necessary when the facts are easily verifiable. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find funny is that users say that TorrentFreak and the like are not "reliable". However when it comes to popular blogs such as engadget, people immediately seem to find that source "reliable". Excuse me, but I don't see how famous newsapers, blogs, and all that other crap makes you think it's reliable. What if all the sources you call reliable all disappeared into nowhere? It's all crazy talk if you ask me, utter shit actually. Now stop reverting it, PLEASE. 208.127.155.20 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you yourself called it a reliable source. Popular != reliable. 208.127.155.20 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Vopt AfD

Kindly review the responses posted to the Vopt article RitaSkeeter 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you will take another look at the article as well as the AfD discussion and have the good sense to keep the article as revised --RitaSkeeter 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it's still a directory entry. Why not include some of the colour mentioned in the AfD debate? know this is en encyclopaedia, but that article is a dry-as-dust description of what reads as an essentially generic product. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox

Guy, I appreciate your open mindedness about SqueakBox but really he does not invariably meet reason with reason. When my request to not depopulate a category without going through CfD is met by accusations that I'm enamored with the rape victims category, I find this unreasonable. When SqueakBox routinely accuses editors of secret pedophile-supporting agendas, oblivious to the fact that, hey, maybe just maybe some people wouldn't be too happy to be labeled pedophiles for closing an AfD as speedy keep, I call that unreasonable. That's not to say SqueakBox can't be a productive editor: he often is. But he can also be a tendentious editor. Of course, this is partly explained by his involvement in articles in which edit warring, POV pushing and sockpuppetry are routine. That does not make it any more acceptable. It is possible to be a member of WP:PAW without being a dick with everyone you find in your way, it is possible to fight POV pushing pedophiles without "boldly" [12] removing a perfectly decent article about an absurdly objectionable subject, it is possible to fight for tougher applications of BLP without attempting to change one of the fundamental principles of the deletion policy without any sort of discussion [13]. A few weeks ago at ANI, Jimbo commented on the recent controversy with Perverted Justice and said something like "what we need is more passionate anti-pedophile editors who are patient and smart to watch these articles". As I replied, what we need is editors that are patient, smart and as clinical as they can be. Passion makes Wikipedia suck. It's why administrators get constant flack, it's why there are revert wars, it's why there are insults flung all over the place and it's never necessary. Were SqueakBox not fighting on the obvious side of the good guys, he would have been forced to change his ways or leave the project a long time ago. Did you take a look at the diffs I provided on ANI? If not, please do: they are definitely the mark of an editor who behaves in a way that's likely to drive away editors like me who can take some abuse but do think that at some point it's best to leave the inmates run the asylum. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I've said, in my experience he has, which is not to say that others have the same experience, or that he always has. Zealous application of WP:BLP is good, and overzealous application should be met with calmness. Passion is not what makes Wikipedia suck, obsession is what does that. Most of the serious problems I've encountered have been with people who are determined to boost their own interests, not with those pursuing WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fine line between unbdridled passion and obsession and passion stops being ok when it leads you to bulldoze your way through other editors. I suppose it's your right not to take a look at the evidence I provided or to write off SqueakBox's extensive block log as the sign of a passionate editor, but even if your interactions with him have been positive, it's important to point out that many others have found him stubborn, prone to wild accusations and prone to edit warring. And by "other editors" I don't mean sockpuppets of Voice of Britain, I mean myself, User:DanielEng, User:Morven, User:Tony Sidaway, User:ElKevbo, User:Kylu, User:Georgewilliamherbert, to name but a few. I'm grateful for the work that he does but I don't think there's any need for the crap that comes with it. Pascal.Tesson 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are Wikifriends of mine, I've not heard from them about it. Regardless, a little patience should pay dividends. He's not some kid, he is a grownup. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can ask them then, or perhaps you can take a look at the diffs I provided or, say, User_talk:SqueakBox/history#NAMBLA_article, User_talk:SqueakBox/history#RfA_comments. I'm asking for 10 minutes of your time because I really am genuinely interested in having your thoughts on this. If you read these incidents and conclude that SqueakBox is just a little too enthusiastic about his work and that the problem is the lack of patience from myself, Georgewilliamherbert, Morven, well I guess I want to get advice on how to handle such things, because clearly I can't. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not obsessed with any subject on wikipedia. We cant have unsourced claims that any living person is a rape victim and I went through the people in that cat on a case by case basis, I certainly made no attempt to depopulate the category as some of the sourced cases where aboslutely left till the cfd passed. I afd'd the NAMBLA article after being asked to do so after being BOLD and redirecting it. ascal, your claim that Sidaway has a problem with me is offensicve and you dont have the evidence to back it up as I have had a good personal relationship with him and we tend to agree on many issues including re possible pedophilia images. This inj itself makes me think you are muck-raking if not actually harrassing me. I dont believe you should handle anything in relation to me, Pascal, as your own behaviour towards me has been far from perfect, eg bringing private emails to my talk page, and even after being warned by El C, being angry that I didnt assume you were an admin when you were not on the admin list nor contactable by meail etc. I have asked for mediation, you are ignoring that request and if this continues an Rfc is probably the only feasible option, and indeed if you want to see me sanctioned arbcom is the only realistic way you willa chieve that. But if you want to leave me alone to get on and edit that would be great. Your campaign against me is anything but, is unwarranted and unwelcome, SqueakBox 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Guy is right that I am not some kid but I feel you, Pascal, are treating me like you are the teacher and I am some unruly schoolkid,m which is so far from the truth that yopu'll have to forgive me if I don't take that approach seriously (I am an adult with serious responsibilities). You have accused me of recklessness etc but I dont see you as being in a position to make that kind of judgement concerning me which is why I would like to see medaition between you and I as the only solution to this issue, other of course than just ignoring each other, live and let live (you seem fine with my edits to the controversial Roman Catholic sex abuse cases so you clearly dont have a problem with many if not most of my main space edits, SqueakBox 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Elura Tilton Penrose

Hi, I was gonna start a stub for Edith Penrose and noticed you have deleted it 3 times already. She's pretty obscure but very influential. Would it be worth me writing up an entry and then putting it forward for consideration before creating the page or is it a lost cause? I mean is the problem just a lack of assertion of significance, or something else? Thanks Paki.tv —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs as sources

Your edit on the Roger Elwood article was proper. It's generally held to be a dirty little secret of the industry, alas, with no hardcopy sources to cite. Such is Wikilife: if you can't source, don't put it in. But I've reverted your edit to the article about John M. Ford, since it met the requirements of WP:SELFPUB pretty nicely. --Orange Mike 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But do we need dozens fo quotes from the horse's mouth? We are supposed to reflect what the reliable independent sources say about him, not simply repeat what he said about himself. I think we're straying too much into a journalistic profile from original sources and away from an encyclopaedic distillation of published material. We are not supposed to be the ones weighing the significance of primary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was based on such posts, it would of course be absurd. The item which was sourced to that particular post was a trivial one, one well within the bounds of the WP:SELFPUB guidelines. --Orange Mike 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia is... trivial. Does the article really need padding? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items

You created an AfD over an existing archived AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items. Ideally, you should have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items (second nomination). I'm not sure where to go from here. I don't know how to split article histories (if that is even possible.) The best bet may be to simply close the AfD, and revert back to the old version, and relist again at the second nom title, and I guess loose those 11 comments. What do you think? Did you purposely start and AfD over the existing archive?-Andrew c [talk] 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clue help neded

Over on BLPN. I removed some inflammatory comments from the SWK talk page, which implicitly compared him with Hitler and other notorious historical figures. Now I'm being attacked as a censor. Some cluebat assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! FCYTravis 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Hello JzG, Meateater has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Meateater 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 2010 in film protected?

I have put a reference to 2010 in film in articles for upcoming Narnia movies, but the page title is protected from creation. Why?Alan 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Any such assertions are at this point pure speculation. --Orange Mike 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_24&oldid=1066807108"