User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Nov-2024. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.

Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me

• JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • archives • privacy policy )

---

Read This First

If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.

Terms of Service
By posting on this page you accept the JzG Terms of Service. 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. If you want something from me, your best bet is not to demand it on pain of shopping me to ArbCom, because that way is pretty much guaranteed to piss me off to the extent that I will do whatever I can to thwart your plans. This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. I can be provoked, it's not even terribly difficult. You may find, if you provoke me enough, that I will do something I later regret. Only remember, you may regret it more. I am a middle-aged surly bastard who spends his working day wrestling spammers and beating Windows with a stick, but I am capable of seeing good in the most improbable people if they don't go out of their way to make me do otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This user posts using a British sense of humour and does not repress those instantaneous motions of merriment.

---

Inspirational message:

The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of

phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.

We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.

Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now.

Thank you for your help.

-Brad Patrick

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

---

Why

Why is this image unfree? How can I know that? can you explain it to me please? can we use this image in another section in the preity page???? dondoniko

From your user page

Thank you JzG

Thank you for posting some very heartfelt and useful information on my talk page. Truly, it helped me understand a lot which I just did not know.

However, I still am not sure if I have been able to get my complaint through to the right sources regarding the behavior of Arbustoo in making the entry of "firewalking" misleading and inaccurate.

I notice that Arbustoo has censored and removed all the evidence in the logs since I filed my complaint. Also, he has just removed all the previous firewalking information that conflicts with his POV and rewrote the firewalking entry so it only expresses his own point of view. This is a terrible reflection on Wikipedia's integrity. Instead of citing recognized authorities, he cites magicians and discredited theories that have been withdrawn by their proponents. This man is a liability to WP.

With sadness, Tolly Burkan

List of members of the Irish Republican Army

• sigh* And here we go again... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the redlinks - each of the people that is added to the list is sourced and will in due course have an article, also I am adding details or a summary bio to each of the redlinks.--Vintagekits 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference is disputed, as you can see on the talk page, and mere membership of the PIRA does not confer notability. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is contesting the reference, why are they contesting the reference and where is this discussion?--Vintagekits 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am, Guy is; Guy explains why below, I've explained why here, and Guy has commented on the source there too. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• The source is almost certainly ineligible - self-published sources are acceptable in articles about themselves, but this article is not about that book, it's about members of the PIRA. There is no doubt that a hagiography of the PIRA will be both iredeemably biased and therefore unsuitable as a source, and also well out of, line with Wikipedia standards on the importance of individual members. It is, in short, an atrocious basis for an article. Start with those who have articles, and add only those for whom there is a realistic chance of independent sources existing. It's unliekly that the book will be wrong in asserting that a person explixitly identified as an IRA member was such, but the list is badly flawed in containing many individuals who were never members of the IRA as such. Overall, it gives a very strong impression of soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• You are the one soapboxing and you are the one that hasnt got a clue what you are talking about. If you have such a poor grip of a subject then I politely suggest that you refrain from editing on those subject. As for "self-published sources" - who was it "self published" by? Your ignorance with regards this issue is deafening and also I suggest that if you cannot check your own bias as the door then you should not be using your powers as an admin to promote and incorrect and ignorant POV. --Vintagekits 09:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nice ad-hominem. Now back to the real world. The book is polemical, a clearly celebratory story of the IRA, and is not obviously a reliable source other than about itself. The article includes individuals whose notability appears not to be established outside of that single, highly biased source. I have no particular interest in celebrating the IRA or its "martyrs", and the article looks to me a lot like soapboxing. The fact that you seem intent on personalising the dispute suggests that you may have an emotional investment in the subject which may not be conducive to neutrality. Obviously you would prefer to recruit an admin who agrees with you, and you are welcome to do so if you can find one, but I will probably not lose interest in this just yet. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is not about "recruiting an admin who agrees with me" this is about your ignorant view of the book - which has been used as a source by what the likes of you would consider a "very reliable source" - you have not provided any evidence that the book is not a reliable source and as you are a self confessed British and Protestant admin then I dont think the you are neutral when discussing a group that was formed to defend itself from a British and Protestant militia - you have obviously swallowed all the British propaganda that you have been feed throughout your life and this is evidences by your above posts. Either stick ot the facts and check your own POV at the door or else I suggest you busy yourslef elsewhere. good day to you!--Vintagekits 09:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, this is one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? "I have a thorough appreciation, he misunderstands, they misrepresent, you are ignorant". A history of the IRA designed for families of the IRA is not really what the community had in mind when they wrote WP:RS, and you have (and I can positively guarantee this) absolutely no idea whatsoever about my views on the history and politics of the Troubles. None at all. Although I will give you this for nothing: anyone, protestant or Catholic, who believes that killing is justified by territorial ambition, is not reading the same Bible as I am. Seems to me this discussion is at an end. You appear to have decided that I am wrong, evil, biased and biogoted, based on the fact that I disagree with you about this source. You view that as evidence of a problem in me, I view it as a problem in you. There is no real likelihood of that changing. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Showing your ignorance again 1. The book is not "A history of the IRA", 2. The book was not "designed for families of the IRA".--Vintagekits 16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• What part of "this discussion is at an end" were you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I fully understand what you said - I just thought I would point out that everything you have said is factually incorrect and then go on to finish the conversation the full stop . --Vintagekits 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• And I just thought I'd point out that your come across as a POV-pushing troll. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Was think the same thing about you - the only difference is that I know what I am talking about and you regrugitate the propaganda you've been feed since you were a kid instead of actually bothering to find out the reality. I'm finished with you now and wont be replying.--Vintagekits 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• So you say. But you do not constitute a reliable source. The Observer is tolerably trustworthy, and it describes the book as "a 368-page tribute to every IRA member to die in Northern Ireland's Troubles" [1] - in other words, no discrimination in respect of notability (as I said), a blatantly partisan view (as I said) and its reliability is questionable as it claims membership for individuals who are explicitly not identified as members in other works which are considered authoritative.

Other portraits of dead IRA volunteers in Tirghra also contradict claims that several of the victims of loyalist terrorism were not involved in the IRA.

They include Danny Cassidy, a 40-year-old Sinn Fein election worker shot dead by the UDA in Co Derry on 2 April, 1992.

In the book Lost Lives, the definitive index of all the Ulster Troubles' dead, the authors mark Cassidy as a Catholic civilian. It quotes a priest at his funeral who said: '[Cassidy] was killed simply because he was a Catholic.'

But in Tirghra Cassidy is referred to as an 'oglach' - the Irish word for soldier and thus a Provisional IRA volunteer.

"Verifiability, not truth" as they say. Where is your source to contradict this view by The Observer's Ireland editor? Here's a source for the idea that the primary intended audience was the families of the dead: [2]. Now of course these sources coule be wrong, or I could be mistaken in my reading of them, but certainly not to the extent of justifying your tirade above. At the very worst this is a disagreement over interpretation of sources, but actually it looks to me form the external evidence as if you are pushing a barrow. One thing's for sure, tributes to dead terrorists written in uncritical commemoration of their acts are not generally going to be viewed by the Wikipedia community as reliable sources. Scholarly analysis and critical review is much preferred to polemic, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Question About School Articles

Hello,

I had contacted you a couple of months ago regarding the article I posted for Rosati-Kain High School: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosati-Kain_High_School . I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and I have been unable to find an answer to the following questions anywhere else on Wikipedia and I was hoping you might be able to help. If this is not your area of knowledge, I don't wish to bother you, but if you do know the answers, I would be very grateful.

I have been researching a few other schools in the area and I have found several of them to have articles on Wikipedia. These articles are linked to what I understand to be a "stub" article on schools in Missouri. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high_schools_in_Missouri . My question is, how can I make the listing of Rosati-Kain a link to this "stub"? Several of the schools listed have articles that link to the name of their schools on this list, and I would like to do the same with ours, but I have been unable to do so.

In addition, I have noticed that several schools similar to ours have pages that seem to present the same type of information as ours does, however, they do not have the "factual accuracy disputed" label. Here is an example of one, though there are several others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnate_Word_Academy_%28Bel-Nor%2C_Missouri%29 . I have several sources I could cite, but none of them are online, so I could not include links to the original references when I created the article. But, if other schools are not required to include the same such references, why are we?

I am certainly not trying to get away with anything that is not within Wikipedia policies, and I am not trying to make an arguement out of it either. I guess I am just curious as to how these policies specifically apply to schools, since it seems as though my article does not do anything that other Missouri high schools aren't doing already with their articles. Yet, we are labelled "disputed" for it.

Any help to these two questions is appreciated, although if you do not know the answer I understand. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annie Hafner (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• I would recommend you visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, where you will find many editors who have considerable experience in related articles and who will be motivated to help you. Please let me know if they aren't helpful, but I'm sure they will be. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have asked my question on that discussion page, so hopefully someone can help me. I appreciate the response. Annie Hafner 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gastrich

AthurR3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first ever edit added Gastrich interview after it was removed. Arbustoo 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Still in our midst: someone added "Dr" (LOL) Jason Gastrich on several articles.[3][4][5][6][7] Also view a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dryve (second nomination), an article created by Gastrich about his favorite subject-himself. Arbustoo 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fascist Wikipedians

I would like your rationale as to why you decided to delete the Fascist Wikipedians user category. Are you also planning on deleting the Communist Wikipedians user category? Did you read the debate that went on a month earlier, in which the decision was made to keep? Algabal 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Guy (Help!) 06:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? The most recent decision regarding the category was keep, and Billy Ego was only one member of the debate. Algabal 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to insist on an offensive polemical category on your user page? Feel free. I hope you don't get arbcommed for it. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, what does this have to do with anything? I'm simply asking for your rationale as to why you deleted the page, and what in the world this has to do with Billy Ego. Algabal 06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See #1 above. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, I have no idea what a discussion on banning an abusive user has to do with deleting a user category which the community previously decided to keep. I genuinely want to know. Algabal 07:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that I think this is much necessary (I think the situation seems to be under control), but here's some actual "facts" regarding the category:

• The result of this UCFD discussion was delete. (And raised concerns of misuse and abuse, which had already occurred.)
• The result of this UCFD discussion was speedy delete as a recreation (G4 of WP:CSD)
• This discussion was a group nomination of politics categories, and Fascist Wikipedians was only kept as part of the group, even though there were several who had issues with it.
• This discussion is the best, though, and is part of why the category was deleted in the first place. It makes it rather clear that this is "something made up in school one day".

And now, considering the arbcomm case, I think it's fair to say that this category should be deleted and salted. So, though as I mentioned above it's not needed, I Support the deletion of this category by User:JzG. - jc37 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Communist user category remain? Algabal 10:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith, and merely suggest that this question is based on a presumption that is a Hasty generalization. There are (as noted above) issues beyond merely suggesting that this is a political belief user category. - jc37 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please outline those issues, as I see none which are not also inherent in the Communism user cat. I'm afraid the reason for your decision to delete the category is still totally unclear. You first cited an irrelevant decision to ban a disruptive user, and then someone else cited several decisions to delete, including one which was totally irrelevant (American Fascist Movement, huh?), ignoring the most recent which was to keep. Algabal 04:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with Jc on this. Fascist Wikipedians was judged as an equal to the other categories. There was almost no one in the third debate that endorsed the keeping of all but Fascist Wikipedians. There were some global-deletes, and more global-keeps. This one gets to stay, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  I understand, and while I don't necessarily agree due to the larger issues, I don't necessarily disagree with your perspective in relation to the recent closure. - jc37 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• American Fascist Movement was made up in school one day, but I fail to see how this means the category in question is made up in connection to that when Wikipedians can be fascist in general. Or how the arbcom case shows this category is disruptive by itself. Take it to DRV again? –Pomte 17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think the best thing to do would be to ask Guy to restore it in order to nominate for discussion at WP:UCFD. If he does, I would also ask him to comment at that discussion about the concerns in relation to the arbcom discussion. - jc37 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service. Awarded by Addhoc 11:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot family

I saw you commented in this AfD quite some time ago, so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. There's a rather large conflict of interest here, details of which I've documented here rather than overburden your talk page. Some of them do seem vaguely notable, but I look at Robert Arbuthnot (auditor) and think there's something rather wrong going on here. I'm involved in a dispute with this editor about another matter so don't want to start mass nominating articles for deletion, so how do you suggest this is handled best? I've already made a report on the COI noticeboard regarding the autobiography, but I think the whole walled garden might need a good look at. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• You know how to eat an elephant? Guy (Help!) 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Naturally, one slice at a time! Just if you look here the accusations of bad faith are flying thick and fast, and I'm concerned that any nominations by me will not be looked on in a positive light. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Xyience

To Whom It May Concern:

I would appreciate your help. I am the web director for a company called Xyience. I have a wiki username Tk421lj and had recent updated an article on Wikipedia about my company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyience

It appears that you recently deleted the article. When I originally created the article, I just wanted to provide the facts about the company. I tried to create a non-biased article that was based on fact. That article has recently been modified by someone who is trying to slander the company. Rather than stating the facts, this person is using Wikipedia for personal gain and self promotion. He has written sensational, tabloid style articles about the company and is posting them on the internet. He is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote his tabloid internet blogs. I have since removed his slander from the Wiki article, but he continues to modify and update the article with content that is not acceptable for a Wiki article.

What can I do about this? I would like to have a Wikipedia approved article about the company on the site, but I don't want to get into fighting with this guy. Is there anything that can be done, and what do you reccomend.

Thanks for your help.

LJ Jones

lj@xyience.com Web Director Xyience Inc. 10650 West Charleston Blvd. Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 www.xyience.com 866.XYIENCE XT 5424 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.241.54.146 (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

• As I said in the email I sent you at the time, WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11, WP:COI and we don't need the off-wikipedia fight. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich unblocked

First new edit on my afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. Arbustoo 06:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You might change your comment on Fred's paper. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dryve (second nomination) was created before his ban. Arbustoo 17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Strike that minor point as he is exposed and banned. So it doesn't matter. Arbustoo 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs, by the way, I think that was what kicked off the CheckUser that sunk the Gastrich ship. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the spammer, you might add Gastrich's cybersquatting of Michael Newdow's name to a list of spam. Here's a list of his sock puppet activity at that article:

• 29 March 2007 930Luau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Add Gastrich's, which he cybersquatted
• 13 July 2006 Michael Bonjorno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[8]
• 2 February 2006 Turkmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[9]
• 21 December 2005 Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[10]

I think this case shows a fine example of why Gastrich came to wikipedia.

Also I sent you an email regarding another matter. Arbustoo 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tírghrá

With reference to various comments you made here. I'm not particularly bothered about that article, as it's been a fiasco ever since it was created and I'd probably be happier if it didn't exist at all. However I've some comments on its reliability in other articles.

Danny Cassidy is also named as an ex-IRA member at the Sutton Index, which is a comprehensive and reliable source. Tírghrá doesn't state he was an IRA member at the time of his death, it actually states:

While still in his teens Danny became involved in the Republican Movement and was a Volunteer in the Kilrea unit in South Derry.

During the 70's and into the 80's Danny remained faithful to the republican cause and during the Hunger Strikes he was a committed member of his local H.Block/Armagh Committee.

After numerous arrests Danny was remanded in custody in 1983 and subsequently released. The Brirtish Army then began a campaign of harassment against him. At this time Danny was a member of the local Sinn Féin Cumann.

As you're no doubt aware, IRA membership is quite a secretive affair. I'm sure you're also aware the Republican movement likes to maximise propaganda. Therefore it would be in the movement's interests to portray Cassidy as a civilian, even ignoring that in the eyes of Loyalist paramilitaries (and Ken Maginnis) the IRA and Sinn Féin are one and the same anyway.

While it is true the book was initially limited circulation, it is now available from Sinn Féin and Amazon. Note that the Guardian says the book is hardback, whereas the general release on Amazon is listed as paperback, which I can confirm as I have a copy.

The book is only generally used in other articles for confirming information such as date and place of birth and other background information, which is permitted under WP:V as far as I can see.

As for McKittrick, no doubt he is an excellent journalist but he does make mistakes too, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, an archived version of the Sutton page from March 2001 confirms Cassidy was ex-IRA, so it hasn't been changed since the publication of Tírghrá. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion: Richard Sproat

• Richard Sproat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am curious about how you determine whether someone is "unremarkable" in carrying out your deletion policy since it's hard to know who is and is not important in a field other than your own. I actually see quite a number of listings under the Linguists category that are for not overly remarkable people and where the pages do not seem to demonstrate that the person is remarkable. So I am wondering if that is the real reason my page was deleted. Actually the Wikipedia policies are far from clear in that it is not obvious what kind of evidence you need that a person is remarkable (or not). Sproat 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• In the main, notable people are written about by others, not themselves, and when autobiographies of genuinely notable individuals which nonetheless make no claim to notability are deleted they are not usually re-created verbatim by single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Goldstein Gallery Page scheduled for deletion

• Goldstein gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm new at editing/contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not sure where to put responses to messages about why the Goldstein Gallery page shoudl be deleted. So I'm placing this message on this page because I want to respond to something that Guy asserted in his comments. He suggested that the artifact analysis was probably lifted from some catalogue description. I want to assert that this is not true. This artifact description, and descriptions of other artifacts that I would like to somehow include in Wikipedia are the original analytical work of my upper division college students in the clothing design and clothing retailing programs. They perform these analyses as a service to the Goldstein Gallery to help the GG learn about its accessions and as practice for the kind of work some of them will do professionally as early as two months from now when they graduate. Dr. Hazel A. Lutz Lutz0013 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldstein gallery is the place, but that replaces copyright infringement with orignal research, which doesn't help much in terms of policy. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

*That* list and 3RR

Please see here. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

You said "Maybe someone can offer an example of a link to one of these sites which is so self-evidently important that the article would be incomplete without *that link* (rather than that content cited to a print source, say)." My position is like Clinton's on abortion - it should be legal and rare. Specifically we should judge links on a case by case basis with attack pages and sites almost never linked to but not mindlessly repeatedly removed while blocking all discussion and people who think they see an exception. I am against mindlessness in all cases. There is a decade old fight between Daniel Brandt and Chip Berlet, their positions of power at wikipedia are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, and this imbalance has affected the NPOV of wikipedia. NPOV is more important that allowing editors to use wikipedia as a battleground. How should wikipedia habdle such a think. Well, the below is the example you asked for. Other ways of dealing with this and other similar cases are possible, but ruling out the below mindlessly simply institutionalized bias. WAS 4.250 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Split within the PIR

Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's Public Information Research (PIR) advisory board, including Chip Berlet, resigned over a dispute concerning another board member, L. Fletcher Prouty, and the republishing of Prouty's book The Secret Team.<ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected", Cambridge, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates, 1991. See Berlet's version of events at [http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html Political Research Associates' ''The Public Eye''] article ''Other Right-Wing Groups and the Gulf War'' (no by-line and no publication date) and Brandt's version of events at the Wikipedia Review website, Wikimedia Discussion section, General Discussion subsection, title: "''A general question regarding Brandt and WP: NPA, One rule for one?''", Post #13 by Daniel Brandt on 7th December 2006, 10:39pm </ref> WAS 4.250 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think you just made my point for me. An argument not discussed or sourceable outside of the parties' sites does not look to me like content which is unambiguously valid for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks!

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I'm glad you like my script and if you need any help with it (or have any suggestions), don't hesitate to ask. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Enema bandit

Google books has this, which seems reliable enough? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• But no other news source has picked up on it, and there does not seem to be any kind of external interest. The number of hits is tiny, it does not appear in books of notable cases as far as I can see, we don't even know if he's still alive. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I know that, it's just that I can imagine online sources being somewhat scarce for it. If it had happened in the last 5-10 years no doubt there would be 1000s of sources for it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, but scarce sources = non-notable. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FFI notability

howdy JzG, you may recall the previous series of AfD's on Ali Sina and the subsequent deletion review, where the topic of the article Faith Freedom International was also brought up. you commented there that Karl Meier had provided reliable secondary sources demonstrating substantial, non-trivial, mention. myself and a number of other editors have recently called this into question per the article's heavy reliance upon primary sources (see sections here, here, here and lastly here for examples of discussion). i would like your input as to whether the links provided do meet WP:WEB criteria, or whether they fall short, because frankly productive discussion has hit a brick wall. thank you. ITAQALLAH 20:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In future maybe you would want to base your comments on facts instead of opinion.

I have replied to your comments here.--Vintagekits 00:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I base my opinions on fact, and when I state opinion I usually make it clear it is such. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

banquet photography

Hi! I created the banquet photography page and the website to gruberphotographers was not a link to "my" site b/c I am not a photographer. I just found their site helpful since they specialize in banquet photography. I put up some more info and pics b/c I hadn't had a chance a few days ago. Let me know if it needs anything else. Thanks! Emily —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drennae (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Hovind screen shot

Can someone explain this to me. Arbustoo 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Louisiana Baptist University

ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a new user (registered nine days ago) has added many tags to the LBU article. Very advanced tags for a newbie including "totally disputing" all the references.

The user, for example, wants an section removed because [11] "implication that this is somehow LBU's fault that one of its (possibly) former students is claiming to have a degree in a program not offered."

So his new user is claiming that Robert Morey may not be a student and could be falsely claiming this. Thus, this user is arguing for a conspiracy without proof into order to remove material cited from the OC Weekly. I tried to talk to this user on the talk page and his talk page. However, more tags (advanced tags) by this new user got added as the reasons because less convincing.

Cbeech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) registed three days ago and has similiar interests in LBU.

Strange claims. Arbustoo 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, already wants an RfC. Not bad for over a week on wikipedia. Arbustoo 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LBU created as a redirect to Louisiana Baptist University Didn't someone else you know do this several times? Arbustoo 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an interest in many articles, especially controversial articles; specifically, improving and/or contributing to them, and ensuring that said articles do not contain OR or synthesis. I have also added other redirects (e.g., Scopes Trial book). I did not know others have tried this before for LBU. Is there a problem with redirecting LBU to the Louisiana Baptist University article? If so, I apologize. I don't recall adding a {{totally-disputed}} anywhere. I was merely subjecting the LBU article to scrutiny, especially since it seemed to be dedicated to a single aspect: LBU is not accredited. In one case, I did commit the gaffe of not noticing one of the references had multiple pages, and I apologized profusely about that. I really don't have any opinion on whether the article itself should stay or go, but if it stays, it should meet wikipedia standards. Since I am not an expert at interpreting these standards, and also because even if they are violated, such violations can be addressed without wholesale deleting, I add tags and bring up issues in the discussion page. I have been wrong more than once, but have probably been right more than once. I tried to have a civil tone with Arbustoo. But I can see that he is annoyed. Therefore, I decided to stop editing the LBU article and hope things calm down by tomorrow. Please AGF. ImprobabilityDrive 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, is this standard operating procedure to intimate that users are sockpuppets? Another user insinuated that I was a sockpuppet of User:Gnixon. Hostile place, wikipedia. Live and learn. ImprobabilityDrive 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Happens a lot when brand new users come along displaying extensive knowledge of Wikipedia tags and syntax and pick up on controversial articles. Very occasionally they are not sockpuppets of blocked or banned users. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BITE . .  ;) . . More to the point, from a first glance at the article it seems to be an attack page playing fast and loose with statements from rather unreliable or indirect sources, so a critical review should be welcome. Sensitivities in this area are appreciated, and no doubt LBU deserves the criticism, but it should be well supported. Good luck to all, .. dave souza, talk 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the major problem is that with this kind of place the sources fall into two categories: uncritical adulation, and debunkers. The mainstream is simply not interested. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A very valid point, but another problem as shown here is that in at least one case the article went far beyond or misrepresented the cited source. This sort of problem can arise very easily, and I'd hope that all concerned can work together to make sure that statements are as well founded as possible. Ta, .. dave souza, talk 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a Gatrich sock.[12] Arbustoo 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please semi-protect St. Clements University. Its getting whitewashed at a steady pace. Arbustoo 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Low level right now but I'll keep an eye out. Good work monitoring these articles. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Baseball Online

I generally agree with you on issues of notability. That is, I think you have a very good eye for identifying unsalvageable crap. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of entries in Category:Video games that warrant curt dismissal as fanservice. This one is different, methinks, because it covers a game which could have a dramatic effect on the industry, or at least become a footnote in the development of the fastest growing videogame market, MMOG. No, the article in its state prior to nomination did not reflect this notion, and yes, Wikipedia needs another game guide like you need someone to petition for a stay of execution for a videogame article, but there is potential here. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your expertise requested

Dear JzG,

This wikipedia stuff is starting to take up too much time! Thanks for your efforts to keep things in line.

I'm working to keep a listing for the organization I work for up to date and accurate. It appears that there has been some acrimony with a few individuals and the Wall Watchers organization in particular. They seem to believe that we are not "Christian" enough to use that word in our name.

I've tried to correct some problems with the page by editing it, but it was reverted. I just posted a list of items on the talk page that outline issues with bias and inaccurate footnote/links.

Here are the details:

"As Assistant Director for Interactive Communications for CCF, I have been working with my team to monitor our listing on Wikipedia. Soupy is another employee in my department, and we have both been working on this task. That is why there are two accounts associated with our domain.

There are some factual errors and biased implications that are of concern to us:

1 - "In 2005, CCF reported $20.6 million in advertising expenses & 13.7 million in management expenses for 13 board members [1]" - This sentence implies that we pay our board. The fact is that our entire board serves on a voluntary, unpaid basis. Furthermore, the footnote does not relate to the sentence. The sentence is correct on the spending for advertising and spending for management expenses. However, it should not relate management expenses to board members. I'd like the sentence to include the fact that all board members are unpaid volunteers.

2 - The contributor to this page selects one out of about five rating organizations to state "CCF does rank considerably lower in efficiency than other charities receiving only 3/5 stars [2]." This is a biased statement that does not reflect ratings from other organizations. The footnote links to a page that does not exist - HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. We would like our rankings from other organizations including BBB, AIP and Interaction to be included to provide the full picture.

3 - The contributor includes the following information - "Upon pledging support, a donor is provided a packet of information on a specific child who is allegedly receiving food, medical care & education on behalf of the donor." The use of the term "allegedly" is biased and actually factually incorrect. We do indeed provide information on a real child in real programs receiving real benefits.

4 - In a recurring theme, the following statement is included and footnoted to an article that has no relevance to the statement - "CCF claims that they do in fact associate a specific child with a specific donor, but in practice this level of service is difficult and costly to implement [3]"

5 - How does the following statement use a footnote reference to a Human Rights Watch article on Child Soldiers in Uganda? "While CCF's fundraising advertising attempts to address this by only showing the single mother case, this is contrary to the demographics of developing countries where mothers have an average of 3.7 children (2003) [4]." The HRW report has no reference to demographics of developing countries.

6 - Instead of referring to an anonymous "spokesperson for the group" we would like the person's name to be included. The "spokesperson for the group" was our former Communications Director, Toni Radler.

We would also like to add a section on Accountability to inform on our validation tools and standardized reporting mechanisms.

There is clearly strong bias against CCF in the current content. We are simply requesting that the items above be reviewed and that we then be allowed to make appropriate changes. The fact that several statements are not even related to the footnote links is a problem. If a statement is made with the appearance of being a fact, provide the reference."

If you have any ideas, let me know how you think I might best proceed.

Thank you for your time,

Bill Cavender —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccfcommunications (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Removal of Alientrap article

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

Why did you remove the page for advertising? why don't you just delete microsoft's entry, or IBM's article if you're going to do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychiccyberfreak (talk • contribs) 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

• Microsoft undoubtedly needs the exposure of a Wikipedia article to help it to become, in time, as significant as Alientrap, which is, as you know, a household name. Or is that the other way round? Guy (Help!) 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Archer

I think you've been slightly unfair on me on ANI, as I'm not involved in the current dispute there at all. My sole involvement with the article to date was back in January/February when I added some sources, then got into a slight disagreement with Squeakbox over whether he was a "disgraced politican" or "former politician". I was briefly involved in the discussion in February about the move, and concurred that Jeffrey Archer was the correct place in my opinion. But I've not been near the article since February 10, other than to try and prevent the current (and lengthy) move war. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe I have, and if so I apologise, but my point was about the wider dispute that the four of you seem to be having. Maybe you are trying to moderate, I don't know, but mediation is certainly justified here because a fight is brewing between some or all of those named. I am given to oversimplifying complex issues, so I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• frickin ditto!--Vintagekits 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• You, on the other hand, seem to have made my point for me. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not be involved in any disputes at all, as they always involve wasting time discussing things when time could be used far more productively. I'm not involved in the ongoing debacle over the use of Ulster Banner in articles, I'm not involved in the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, I'd rather get done what needs doing. Do you want to see some of my excellent contributions?

• Chronology of Provisional IRA actions - before, totally unreferenced but now has 85 references, and I'm still working on it.
• Colombia Three - before, had one reference that didn't even reference a lot of the article.
• Dessie O'Hare - before, outrageous WP:BLP violation.
• Northern Bank robbery - before, all sorts of WP:BLP problems.

I'd much prefer to spend my time doing work like that, which is why I stay away from problem articles that are time consuming. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Guy, you have been bang out of order with me ever since I came across you and to be honest I am getting a bit p'ed off with it. You seem to think that because you are admin you can say and do what you want. I would appricate I you acted in accordance with the power that has been accorded to you have have a bit of respect. To drag my name into the "Lord Archer" debate is misleading and bang out of order - its got feck all to do with me. If you dont agree with republicanism then that is fine but you are not entitle to harass me because of your political and religous POV.--Vintagekits 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• So you say. But your advocacy of a polemical source that conflicts with more reliable sources is a problem, and the problem has been noted by numerous editors. Mediation is thataway -----> Guy (Help!) 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we got to the bottom of that one and proved that the source that I was using was the correct one! on ya trot!--Vintagekits 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A descriptive header

You've got mail. – Steel 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, so I have :-) Guy (Help!) 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd give you a barnstar but they're so impersonal these days, so here's a nice smily face: :) – Steel 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to take that to the user comments and smileys Wikiproject and get it approved using form 27/4b section 5 subsection 2. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That Wikiproject reminds me of my student loan application form... – Steel 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cup of tea and a sit-down?

I don't see how I am supposed to sustain my sense of righteous indignation if you insist on injecting reason and moderation into the discussion.[13] Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks again for doing the RfA! We'll see how it goes. One minor correction: I have neither legal background nor training. Other than that, I think it's good to go. Thanks, William Pietri 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive matter

I have a somewhat timesensitive related matter that I'd like to email you about. However, the email will need to be CCed to another admin and non-Wikipedian whom I trust (the reasons for this should be apparent in the email). Do you mind having your email address included in this fashion? JoshuaZ 05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• This should be fine. Guy (Help!) 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List Of Things Faster Than A Dog

Hello, JzG ... would you please WP:SALT this page? It has been created and CSD'd twice today that I know of, because I put warnings on the author's talk pages ... see User talk:Rubber cat#List Of Things Faster Than A Dog and User talk:Toasterhead#List Of Things Faster Than A Dog ... I suspect that these are in fact the same user. Thnx! —

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A cat! El_C 06:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Statutory college

You marked Statutory college with a {{disputed}} tag. I left a few comments and questions on its talk page. Perhaps you can take a look. Cheers! btm _talk 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism

JzG, your blocking the entire Larry Gluck article without using any deletion administrative process sure looks like vandalism to me. Are you abusing you power as an admin?--Fahrenheit451 18:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• A classic case of rouge admin abuse. Or something. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy - Fahrenheit451 is a good guy (though not Guy), a good contributor and on the side of the angels and Wikipedia. I've pointed out to him that living bios are by far our biggest headache, so a certain snappishness is more or less policy. I've also suggested he ask you for help with living bios, because you're one of our really good living bio attack dogs ;-) He edits in areas where clearly bad faith editors are unfortunately frequent, so I hope you can forgive him his lapses as he can forgive yours ;-) - David Gerard 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• For sure. No evil intent assumed, of course. I will explain the detail if he wants. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

LivePrayer with Bill Keller

Remember deleting this as Live Prayer with Bill Keller? It's back. Seems to be a single purpose account too. Cary Bass ^demandez 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a heck of a job!  :) I'll make you cookies soon. Cary Bass ^demandez 20:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, homemade flan should be in order. Hope you can eat dairy products!!! Cary Bass ^demandez

Here is some delicious Cuban flan for the outstanding job you're doing on keeping biographies decent! Cary Bass ^demandez

A7 doesn't cover radio shows. Knowing that you can't divulge OTRS issues in detail, is there a specific thing that needs to be avoided in the future, since we should have an article on this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: an article on this. It is vacuous self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, you should sign up for OTRS. You'd be good with the courtesy and some other queues. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about it. So there's an OTRS issue with simply having an article on a noteworthy program? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there's an issue with having a spam article on a generic Christian prayer show posted by a single purpose account and then continuously reposted after deletion by three separate admins under at least two titles. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you mentioned an OTRS issue in one of your deletion summaries about it - I assume this means that there's no issue with an article being created other than the fact that it may have read spammy to you? Was the OTRS thing an error? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are several problems. The article is spammy, it was posted by a single purpose account, it has previously been subject to edit warring, the subject wants to maintain it as promotion and someone else wants to maintain it as a hatchet job. It is not worth the trouble. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So no OTRS problem that a completely uninvolved and, until now, uninterested editor would need to concern himself with? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• That would only leave three problems: deliberately and self-consciously rewarding a spammer; reintroducing an article that attracts pretty much only partisan edits and attracts complaints whenever it strays from hagiography; and wasting time that would be better spent on an article with some objective merit. Oh, and gratuitously pissing me off. So that's four. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• You got mail, Jeff. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting of Live Prayer with Bill Keller?

Clearly, this is notable. It has been on TV for over 4 years, including 1 year on national television, and he has been on the Howard Stern show 3 times.

Why did you delete it?

--RucasHost 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• If only someone with edits outside of this subject thought so, and it was supported by non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Have fun burning up in hell. --RucasHost 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do so love the moral certainties of fundies. The only thing funnier is watching them quote Christ's berating of the Pharisees without noticing the irony. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Knowing how much you enjoy dealing with all this, can I get some input here please. Note that I'm arguing for fully sourced (in my opinion anyway) content that portrarys Adams in a more negative light adding back to the article, not what you might expect! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For no reason at all..

For absolutely no reason other than trying to cheer you up a little :) Have a beautiful day, dear Guy! Love, Phaedriel - 07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

CureMD Corporation

An editor has asked for a deletion review of CureMD Corporation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bballoakie 07:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism

I've restored the page. Please don't ignore other admin's judgement and merrily speedily delete away, particularly when a valid AFD was underway. The content was not the same as that which existed previously, I was asked to move the temporary page that had been worked on for over a month into the article space, and agreed that it deserved a fair whack. If you wish it deleted, use AFD - speedy deletion is not appropriate. Neil (►) 11:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did not ignore other admins' judgement - it has been deleted enough time that the ones restoring are the ones doing that. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dobbs

Um, how is providing a direct link to the deletion review "silly" and invocative of page protection? "See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 30#Bob Dobbs for a direct link without having to deal with a long page of other deletion reviews and edit conflicts." is not an editorial but, simply, a more efficient means of getting to the article. Seems like a case of wiktatoriality (i.e. admin abuse) to me... -Eep² 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)