User talk:Fran Rogers

I prefer to keep all correspondence in the same place; if you leave me a message here, I will respond here. If I post a message on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Thank you!

What the Bleep

Many thanks for protecting What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Would it be possible for you to revert the protected page to a version that does not contain OR/Synthesis and has the fact tags that were removed by the last editor? The article is full of OR right now. this version has most of the OR removed and has the fact tags present. I think removal of the OR is best for the article and will help the talk page discussion move forward. Thanks! Dreadstar †

While I agree that OR is wholly unacceptable, of the information you are requesting be removed, at least some of it does appear to have sources, which hints to me that this dispute is over more than simply OR. Additionally, reverting protected pages generally only fans the flames even more, rather than helping the debate move forward. Please try to reach a consensus on the talk page instead. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 19:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. The appearance of sources for the material is false, the citations do not contain the information the reference is used for (the salon.com article, for instance, does not say that the movie is based on the the Ramtha School of Enlightenment).

You are so right, this is obviously not just about OR, it appears to me that the editors who insist on adding the OR are POV-pushing, and edit warring to do keep it in. The article currently violates policy, so I think it's totally unacceptable for OR to remain in the article, even during the dispute resolution that will now hopefully start. With their POV/OR in place, I see no reason (and no history) to indicate that those pushing that POV will stonewall and force us to go to unreasonable lengths.

I've tried my hardest to present my reasoning, only to be met with edit warring and useless remarks from the POV editors. [1], [2], [3][4], [5].

I think leaving the article as is creates a much more difficult environment for discussion, leaves an article with material that violates Wikipedia policy in place...but I will try to get it resolved. I hope and beg you to reconsider. (well, not really beg...but it sounded good, eh?  :) 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing your diffs, I agree, some questionable activity and falsified research is going on from those editors. As the protecting admin I am still reluctant to do any reverting, however, as people often cry foul when m:The Wrong Version is protected; however I have added an {{original research}} tag to the article, which I hope is an OK compromise. =) Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for reviewing my diffs and adding the tag! At least now there is something to indicate a possible issue... much appreciated. While I do think you would stand on solid ground for reverting additions of material that violate policy, I understand your reluctance to revert. I'll see how things go, and if the discussions don't get more fruitful, I'll update you. Thanks much! Dreadstar † 19:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that this section is full of OR/Synthesis of published material service to advance a position? Looks exactly like that to me... Dreadstar † 19:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have the time, can you review my logic here: [6]? I want to make sure my understanding of synthesis is right...Thanks!! Dreadstar † 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Short update, I've gathered most of the OR/Synthesis material in a sandbox, so everone can edit and provide sources, explained OR/Synthesis in great detail on the article's talk page and got agreement from a knowledgable admin on the WP:NOR Talk page that the content I've identified is OR. A bit of work, but I think it should help us to resolve the situation. Not much from the revert-warring editors on this leg of the process yet...;)

Let me know how you think I'm doin'  :) Thanks! Dreadstar † 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

Check out the history The Tibet page is a nightmare to upkeep mostly from a massive number of anonymous users who think it is a forum to promote Chinese politics. The China-Tibet debate is becoming a major problem for the page. It needs constant reverting nearly on a daily basis as it will degrade quickly - we're trying to keep a neutral balanced argument between Tibetan nationalism and PRC policies as you'd expect in an encyclopedia entry and because of continued edits many of which are not even written in proper english are affecting the intergrity of an important wikipedia article. If you do look at the massive histiry of the page by unregistered users and reverting you'll see that the issue will never die down and will need ongoing protection as soon as possible. Please try to do somrthing thanks -I see the PRC page is also having a tremndous amount of problems -there are 1.3 billion Chinese after all!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Zeitgeist The Movie

Bring further discussion to DRV. Thank you. Krimpet 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
== The Zeitgeist movie, needs to be restored. Regaurdless of what your claims may be for deleting it, your job here is to be an unbias data bank of information. You should only be up holding the integity and validity of the information by taking the steps neccisary to maintain turth. Never should entire articles be deleted. Who are you protecting? Not youself, your only destroying your reputation. What is your explonation your this deletion? -Zachary J == I demand that Zeitgeist be removed from deletion list NOW!!! Read my comments and you will get the truth. I have over 1,000,000 people and they demand this!!! I want a reply. Don't be stupid!!! Tim Greetings can I ask what was specifically meant by COI ( Conflict of Interest ) on your summary for deletion of this article?Vexorg 04:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) See WP:COI. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) The content was heavily edited by User:Zeitgeist filmmaker, a clear conflict of interest. I note that you were the original author and another large contributor, and I am not accusing you of a CoI as well; I apologize if it appeared this way. The CoI was not the primary reason for deletion, but rather the clear consensus for lack of notability and especially verifiability. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 04:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Ok, thanks for that. Obviously I am diasppointed in this outcome. I created the article after watching the film and hearing about it almost everywhere I went on the Internet. I have no association with the film other than being a viewer. I have been involved in the discussion regarding notability and while I disgree I can understand. however I do not understand verifiability being a reason. The film clearly exists,which is obviously verifiable, so where was the problem in that area? Vexorg 04:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) The problem is, even if the film exists, without any reliable sources at all to attribute facts to, it's impossible to verify the truth of even the basic details of the film: its release date, how word got out about the film, whether or not the film actually has a large following as claimed, etc. Unfortunately we can't rely on forums and people's personal websites to verify these facts, particularly considering the guerilla marketing used in promoting the film: how do we know to what degree these sites may have been astroturfed? I don't mean to be discouraging, as I know you created the article in good faith. =/ However if the film is later covered in reliable sources, the article can certainly be restored. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 05:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you for taking the bold move of closing that horrendous meatpuppetfest early.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) question clear consensus for lack of notability and especially verifiability ... Could you please elaborate on how you established consensus? I think you just used your own judgment and ignored all opposing views. This is a majority decision at best, and this is not consensus. Did you even read the AfD page? — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Support for Question - Yes I would like to know what led to the establishment of consensus. it's worth noting that the article was deleted while I was editing it. I had put up a WP:INUSE tag as well. Surely it would have been right to inform me the page was about to be deleted at least.Vexorg 16:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Firstly, AFD is not a vote. The users who supported deleting the article brought up valid policy and guideline based reasons for deleting the article, and no valid rebuttal was produced by those wanting to keep it. And so no matter how many people wanted the article to stay, there was actually a consensus it did not meet the notability requirement. Further, the AFD was plagued with a sock or meatpuppet army, so straight vote counting was even more irrelevant in that case. Someguy1221 17:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)AfD is not a vote. It seemed clear to me, after looking over the entire discussion several times, that most of the keep arguments were flimsy arguments that accused Wikipedia of censorship and were trying to use WP as a springboard to "get the word out" about the movie, from users with no other contributions to WP. On the other hand, most of the delete arguments were firmly grounded in our established policies and guidelines. These policies and guidelines, being long-standing and refined by the community over many years, reflect the general consensus of the community as a whole. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I can understand your reasoning that most of the "keep"-arguments were flimsy. However, this does not invalidate the other arguments for "keep". So what's your opinion on "give it time", "ignore all rules", "let's not depend solely on authority" and "not a bureaucracy", then? To my disappointment, I see no effort on the Afd discussion working toward consensus. Also, endless repeating of "delete, non-notable" argument IMO amounts to voting, not intelligent debate. Thx — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I demand you restore the article, I'm a WP user and i need information on the subject, I need to know how this film started, creators, content and some other facts about the movie. WP is a place to find information and i couldn't so i guess WP is useless. Don't start stupid discussions on weather the film is important or not, the film is out there so it is REAL and WP's job is to post all information available on the subject!!! WP is failing on doing this simple task. And about the notability issue, let me remind all of you WP is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a popularity contest. Who cares if this article is useful for 1 person or 100 million? This article is informative not an opinion so it must stay! Nergar 22:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Hey, I can see you're really busy responding to all of the questions about your deletion of the Zeitgeist movie...NOT. Now. Luuucyyyyyyy you've got some esplaining to do!!!!!! request userfication Dear Krimpo, as I had already asked before you deleted it, I would like the article to be userfied until notability is established. Would you pls move the deleted article, along with its entire history intact, to my userspace? I can hear from your banner that you are fed-up with discussing this Afd. Aware of this, I would still like to let you know that I would welcome to hear your opinion on: "give it time", "ignore all rules", "let's not depend solely on authority" and "not a bureaucracy". Notability is a guideline, which is less strict than offical policy, so I'm confused on the difference between the two. But I would understand if you'd decline right now. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC) I still have the article backed up at home - I was editing it at the time ( it was deleted without warning while I had an inuse tag up )Vexorg 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a bureauacracy, but it is an encyclopedia; notability is a guideline, but verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. I am not userfying the article; if reliable sources existed, the article could be restored fully, but it's been clearly established that none exist thus there's no way to source the article, and userspace is not intended simply for copies of deleted articles. Once again: bring it to DRV, where the Wikipedia community can review the deletion. Krimpet 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC) continued... HEY WIKIPEDIA.....The Film really excist, I can verify that because I watched the film. There is no point side tracking the issue. The film was made to create healthy debate. It seems some folks want to do anything to avoid healthy debate, hence remove the film listing and have a bunch of side debates that make no attempt to deal with the subject or views raised in the film. To make my point clear to you, I am not at all the producer of this film nor am I connected with this film in any manner other than being a film producer myself. In my view not only is the film ZEITGEIST worthy of healthy debate as well as the views raised in the film but I also share the view that the film is one of the best produced artistic pieces I have seen coming out of the documentary genre. I am sad to say that it seems to me more like the issue is something much different from what has been stated on Wikipedia. I read just some of the articles written for deletion and I keep seeing a common term listed "RELIABLE SOURCES", can anyone explain to me what sources in particular dealing with what information in particular would anyone on Wikipedia like varified? I do not see any mention of the information or subject that is up for debate in particular. There seems to be a problem that has not been identified fully so we can all clearly understand. If the issue has something to do with "CHRISTIANITY" then it to me seems unfair because it would be like asking a "Christian in church to varify something of his faith. Hence the issue. I really like my Documentaries to stick to facts that are known and not faith. I don't mind a determination if it is presented with facts that seem to support it so others can research, and that is exactly what the film seems to do. Who can prove that the bible is a reliable source! The bible makes the ultimate claims yet no one seems to be correct or agree about much of it's contents. Hence the movie ZEITGEIST! Christians do not all consider every bible to be reliable! In fact many Christians consider other Bibles to be unreliable sources. So I hope this reliable source issue does not float back to the issue of the Christian faith. As far as the popularity aspect of the debate. How popular does something have to be for it to be considered popular on Wikipedia? I just want to have an exact number everyone can know and " RELY" on! In my research examining how many people have watched it on YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE it has gotten great reviews and has broken threw what I would call internet popularity status. As of JULY 17th ZEITGEIST the movie "the final version only" has had 502,697 view on google alone. Yesterday ZIETGEIST the movie had 25,614 views on google alone! As far as i can see when discussing a Documentary Film these numbers are great! The movie surely has created a following and buzz in the USA. Well I have said enough. I hope I can get some good answers from my questions and i look forward to some healthy debate because unlike many people I do have the time right now and I do love a good Film. Take care and I hope to hear from you, Xemola 08:02, 17 July 2007 Xemola In short, a lot of wikipedia editors hate the subject of the movie, and they think it will give undue credibility to the movie if wikipedia has an article about it. And vice versa, that wikipedia will loose credibility by having articles on cranky subjects. Since there is no guideline against fairly describing weird subjects, people tend to focus on Reliable sources and Notability instead. (To my opinion, to an unreasonable extent.) — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Indeed. It's certainly true that many wikipedia editors were extremely uncomfortable with the content of the film. The passion to delete was far and above a simple complaint about the 'notability' excuse they hid behind. I don't think it's even a cranky subject. it simply a film that makes claims and provides sources for it's claims. Besides it's a film. Films can be about anything, they don't even have to be non-fiction.Vexorg 17:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Zeitgeist the Movie AfD Egad. Whispering 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Hello. This decision was taken as a form of censorship and was NOT done according to any respect for protocols or WP rules, let alone WP users. 1) I made an obvious, simple and logical argument for KEEP and that was deleted from the archived discussion. This is censorship even in the discussion. 2) The sources were in process of being compiled and the decision to delete prevented those from appearing. This is not the first time that I have been involved with WP and experienced the heavy hand of censorship. Wikipedia needs to be revisited and billed correctly. It is just another highly censored propaganda tool for the military's deception culture. And you sir, have done your part to make that completely evident. And these facts will get publicized! Most sincerely, Cheryl Maietta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.111.191 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I am totally uninvolved in this. However, after looking over the AFD, there was a consensus that said that the article did not cite reliable sources, was not notable, and that it was a soapbox. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 18:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) While the notability of the article was contentious, the one thing the article was certainly NOT and that was a Soapbox. I created the article and was repsonsible for most of it's updating. I have no vested interest of attachment to the film other than being a viewer. I simple reason I craeated the article was because it is a popular and widely known film and when I looked for an article on wikipedia I couldn't see an article. I thought this was strange and set about creating one. I can appreciate certain people would be opposed to this film being anywhere let alone wikipedia as it challenges traditional viewqs on certain mythologie and the creidibility of western governments. however I nevger thought the opposition would be so passionate on wikipedia. I creatwed the article in completely good faith. Vexorg 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) We welcome your contributions, but there just weren't any reliable sources to prove that it existed and it was notable. Other editors cannot prove that it existed without those reliable sources, and therefore could not help but call it a soapbox, as it was unverifiable. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 2 days (possibly)) 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) With respect, saying you can't prove the film's existence is ridiculous. The film is proof of it's own existenceVexorg 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Agreed. Additionally, the topic is clearly notable... there is discussion of the deletion and subsequent locking of this article on the various administrative talk pages all over wikipedia. Also, the movie, it's sources (all very REAL) can be found on the movie's home page: found here. The worst about all this was that the sources on the previous version of this entry had sources cited that were even more in depth than entries on the home page, including publisher information, page numbers etc., all done by contributing authors to that article, which clearly asserts it's notoriety. It's really preposterous that this article was deleted and subsequently locked! --Trekerboy The Special Barnstar For your diligence in wading through the noise and SPA posts to find the correct closing for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. Well done! KillerChihuahua?!? 14:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I'm really dissapointed that zeigeist the movie was removed. I am especially dissapointed that the process of deletion went by so quickly that I didn't even have an opportunity to comment. I am not on the internet every day, but it would still be nice to have a chance to have a say. Why is the deletion process so speedy? I would think it not unreasonable to allow at least a week for discussion. I've been trying to be a good wikipedian, but I am starting to get very disillusioned. Who gets to be the final arbitrator in a deletion argument? Who decides? I think that the burden of proof should reside with those who would promote deletion. In this case, I don't think that burden was met. Moonbug 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Ditto man, ya'll are way too agressive with what is deemed wiki-worthy. You ahve to understand that your website has no credibility whatsoever. You're like the MTV movie awards and you're trying to be the oscars. you have GEG PACKER, a worthless human being in wikipedia, but you wont have a ground breaking documentary in. Thats just mind boggling, you even have Leroy Jenkins. What significance does Leroy jenkins have over The Zeitgeist movie? Absolutely ludicrous I have to thank you for being bold enough to close that AFD, even knowing the negative reaction it would focus upon you. Keep up the good work ;-) Someguy1221 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination)

uh you really need to read the AN/I thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FList_of_songs_about_masturbation_.25284th_nomination.2529.7CAfd_List_of_Songs_about_masturbation, this AFD was not properly listed and was an invalid AFD. Please reverse your close and let it run the normal 5 days listed as an AFD people can actually see. --W.marsh 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I didn't notice it had been improperly listed. I've gone ahead and reopened it. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to miss... not a normal thing one checks for. At any rate Ryulong has closed the afd again... this thing has turned into a real mess. --W.marsh 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: NOPEC

Unfortunately, I missed the deletion discussion on NOPEC, and have only just noted the article's absence. You were the deleting administrator in that case.

NOPEC is an industry jargon term that is moderately common and not terribly new, so I don't believe its deletion under WP:NEO is valid. The original article included two external references showing use of the term: perhaps that was not considered sufficient evidence. Here are some examples.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/mckillop021807.html

"CAN OPEC AND NOPEC STOP THE OIL PRICE SLIDE ?"

(It is clear from the context of the article that NOPEC means the non-OPEC oil exporting countries.)

http://www.petroleumworld.com/sati07032401.htm

"Continued and sustained oil demand growth inside OPEC and NOPEC exporter countries, specially Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela, Mexico, Algeria combined with physical depletion and erosion of oil production capacities in the majority of these countries, ensures a tight supply context. "

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Energy.pdf

"But at the same time, consumers will for the first time in decades, have the opportunity to negotiate alternative deals with a number of suppliers that operate outside of the OPEC-pricing mechanism or be able to exploit upstream and downstream investment opportunities presented by the NOPEC producers."

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041100_ciep_vanderlinden.pdf

"It is generally assumed that world energy demand will grow, that import dependence grows, that there will be a growing competition among major net-importing coutnries and that the number of net-exporting countries will decline due to a relative shift in balance between OPEC-NOPEC producers."

http://www.sav.sk/journals/ekoncas/ekon203.htm

"Even though the high oil prices after two oil shocks raised oil revenues in OPEC member countries, they also gave rise to start the production in non-OPEC (NOPEC) countries."

I hope you will consider reversing the deletion.

Ordinary Person 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced, this term does seem to be used in the industry after all. I've restored the article. My apologies =) Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Conservape-tan.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Conservape-tan.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. TomTheHand 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Zeitgeist_the_Movie

• logs

Hi, could you tell me which version was deleted where I was discussing the deletion outcome? If the talk page of the deletion discussion is not the proper place to discuss it, where is ? Thx — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:Stephen deleted the version in question; I don't know why he used the deletion summary CSD G6, which IMO was improper and misleading. However, deletion review is the proper forum for reviewing deletion decisions. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

thx — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

---

• Hello, could you tell me what the proper process for requesting an article to be unlocked for creation? --Trekerboy

Spurious username creation

Would you like to explain your current activity of creating various unicode-named users? Example 05:50, 17 July 2007 Krimpet (Talk | contribs) created new account User:⌬ (Talk | contribs) and 05:48, 17 July 2007 Krimpet (Talk | contribs) created new account User:↻ (Talk | contribs) and 05:35, 17 July 2007 Krimpet (Talk | contribs) created new account User:＃ (Talk | contribs) etc etc. Thanks. --218.219.212.47 05:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was simply testing out the possible Unicode usernames that MediaWiki would accept. I was actually surprised at how lenient it was. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 06:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This "feature" has been widely abused in the past. --218.219.212.47 06:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't do it again, please. Usernames should be meaningful identifiers in some human language. -- Karada 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was simply poking around, and had no malicious intent. Using these accounts for abuse would have been pointless for me, as the user creation log clearly links their creation to my main account. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 06:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- Karada 07:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please. do not remove ifd tags from images

Hi, Krimpet. Please. do not remove {{ifd}} tags from images as you did here. This is not the proper way to contest the deletion nomination. In fact, removing the ifd tag won't prevent an image to be deleted.

If you (or any other editor) want to contest the nomination, follow the instructions on the tag itself (that's why it's important!). But please, make sure you're familiar with our non-free content policy.

Let me know if you still have any doubts. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservape-tan for deletion

Regarding this, I highly recommend uploading it to Commons. Wikipedia indeed is mostly for encyclopedic images, Commmons is for anything free.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

USRD

I was wondering if you would explain what you mean by your edit summary when you left the project. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was informed that several core USRD members were planning to votestack this RfC against my favor, collaborating in an invite-only IRC channel to do so, and even downgrading my access level to #wikipedia-en-roads-us, all the while assuming bad faith over something that was essentially a non-issue. I don't see how I can participate in a project where the key leaders would act in this manner. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 03:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here, but from what I saw, you were creating accounts that sure looked like WP:POINT. Maybe they weren't, but that's how it looked from people who were already upset about SLG. As for the invite-only thing, I wasn't fully aware of what +i did and why it was being used (note how bad I am at IRC sometimes) But for my part in the matter, I apologize. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As I explained partially above, I was creating the accounts out of curiosity of what MediaWiki would accept as a valid username. I created them while logged in, to make it clear that it was just me testing things out, rather than some random IP creating a bunch of suspicious accounts; the accounts would have had little sockpuppetry potential, as the logs clearly linked their creation with my main account. While the SLG controversy was what made me curious about it, I made no contributions with any of the accounts (feel free to confirm them with Special:Contributions and Special:DeletedContributions), nor do I even remember the passwords I used for them; I note that some of the other admins did add their accounts to the SLG list in a POINTy manner, but I did not plan to. Yet nobody from the project read the explanation I had given above, nor attempted to ask me for an explanation personally. The fact that the USRD members automatically assumed bad faith and jumped on the RFC bandwagon in a way that seems to mirror the way prior controversies within USRD have unfolded, has made me lose faith in the WikiProject. Krimpet 06:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

commons:Image:Conservape-tan.png

I have copied the image to commons. Just an FYI -- Cat ^chi? 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

userfication

notability is a guideline, but verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. I am not userfying the article; if reliable sources existed, the article could be restored fully, but it's been clearly established that none exist thus there's no way to source the article, and userspace is not intended simply for copies of deleted articles.

Hi Krimpet, I cannot quite follow your hidden archive magic; it's wonderful. So I am copying your reply for everyone's clarity; no offense intended. I do insist you provide me with a copy of the deleted version, so I can look for sources and new info. If you are afraid that even in userspace this article will harm wikipedia, then please copy the latest version of the article here:

• http://www.talk2000.nl/mediawiki/index.php/User:Xiutwel/Zeitgeist_the_Movie

Is that ok with you? I am very disappointed though, not being able to see its history in detail. Perhaps you will copy the history as text, since it cannot be transferred, so I can at least read the comments and editors names. Thx for considering — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you a copy of the final revision before it was deleted via the "e-mail this user" feature, which is acceptable. As I already explained above, I will not userfy it as it has been clearly established that no reliable sources exist to improve this article's sourcing, and userspace is not to be used simply for keeping copies of deleted articles around. Krimpet 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I received it. Will you please also mail me the talk page? And the history?— Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaat?

What the hell did you come up with this kind of speedy keep? @pple 08:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Best close summary on wheels evar. Someone was reading the news :-) GreenReaper 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Between this and biting the 12-inch shell that was the Zeitgeist closing, you're my current hero. Well done! =) Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

You gave me a very harsh warning about "personal attacks" on the Matt Sanchez article discussion page. Where are your equivalent warnings to Sanchez, or is fair play not part of Wikipedia? 24.18.130.89 05:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You directly attacked fellow editor WJBscribe, who was trying to mediate the dispute and clearly acting in good faith and to the letter and spirit of our biographies of living persons policies, calling him "not neutral" and "not acting in good faith." I see Sanchez himself has been attacking other editors in the same if not worse fashion, and this is completely unacceptable; however, he was already given a stern warning several weeks ago and seems to have ceased since. The fact that Sanchez has been making personal attacks does not give you the right to attack well-meaning mediators like WJBscribe. Krimpet 06:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't attack WJBscribe. I gave my opinion that he has violated Wikipedia's rules. He should be investigated for his misconduct. Does Wikipedia now interpret disagreement and protest as "personal attack?" Is that what this place has come to? 24.18.130.89 06:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanchez was given a warning several weeks ago, and he has resumed what are clearly personal attacks. They are not statements like mine about my belief that WJBscribe has ignored Wikipedia's rules. Yet no one has disciplined Sanchez. It would seem that neutrality isn't really neutral, is it?