Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:JzG

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 22:34, 8 May 2007 (→Daystar Television Network (criticism): reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Jan-2025. 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

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)[reply]

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

Enema bandit

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

  • 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)[reply]

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 [1] "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)[reply]

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

Blocked as a Gatrich sock.[2] Arbustoo 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That user was unblocked as not as Gastrich sock, but according to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive, ImprobabilityDrive is likely a sock puppet of VacuousPoet who is banned. Arbustoo 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This edit shows one of three edits by an anon libelling Steve Levicoff, the others being [3] and [4]. If it weren't an anon an immediate indefinite block would seem in order. What do you think? ... dave souza, talk 09:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Alientrap article

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).[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

A descriptive header

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

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

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

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.[5] Tom Harrison Talk 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're doing a heck of a job!  :) I'll make you cookies soon. Cary Bass demandez 20:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes: an article on this. It is vacuous self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Endal Dog

Hi there

I read your comments re Endal (dog) rfd. Endal is currently an exhibit in the Animal's War exhibition in the Imperial war museum http://north.iwm.org.uk/server/show/conEvent.1409 He today has had 300 film crews from around the world film him, currently a movie is being made about our story. If you live in the UK on Sunday in the issue of the newspaper The Star, Take Five supplement is an article about Endal

A article by a Sun newspaper investigive journalist wrote an article http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2004540383,00.html

also http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/features/The_be_all_of_Endal_article_99804.html

also historic link http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=%22allen+parton%22&st=NL&nml=True&t=&a=&src=ALM&src=DICT&src=ENCY&src=MAGS&src=MAPS&src=NEWS&src=PICS&src=THES&src=TRAN&src=WHITEPAPER&count=20&offset=0&sort=RK&sortdir=D&pst=INCLUDE_ALL&cn=&storage=ALL&display=ALL&sponsor=ALL&docclass=ALL&relatedid=&bid=&embargo=False includes mentions of his award of the title Dog of the Millennium for being the only dog in the world to be able to operate a cashpoint machine /ATM

I really can't fathom what it is a dogs needs to do to be considered more famous. The UK Times Newspaper listed Endal in the top ten most famous dog of all history. He has launched Crufts in 2004, been one of five hero dogs presented to an audiance of 18 million at Crufts in 2005

Endal and Allen 21:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barber

Do you want to take a look at the recent history of Nick Gulas and block pretty much every account (excluding me obviously) that's edited it in the last week as a sockpuppet please? I've just had to get it undeleted by the deleting admin but he's not as familiar was Barber as you, so I doubt he'll be keen on blocking. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can get the CheckUser folks to block the proxies? The Open Proxy CheckUser has stood there since the 25th of last month. Thanks :) SirFozzie 00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daystar Television Network (criticism)

You reworded the 'criticism' section removing proper nouns as well as changing the reason for the investigation while keeping the citations, saying it was more accurate. How in? Normalphil 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey JzG, definitely can understand your aversion to Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine and users related to User:ParalelUni, so thanks for resolving the completely baseless issues (with the exception of minor URL changes) on the talk page so quickly and decisively, as well as blocking all the ban-evading meatpuppets. Leuko 05:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

Hi, I'm wondering if you would like to coach me ;-) Kappy editing, Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is real life

Re: your response

At the very least, it's a not insignificant part of many people's lives. Simply because the action is taken at a distance while the person is typing text into a computer does not remove it as a part of our "real lives".

Do you consider only things that "matter" to be real life? If you do, then how do you determine what it is that "matters"? (What you care about is not what most others care about - especially if those others are naval gazers.)

I especially find it disturbing that you consider it important enough to post "Hell yes. It makes the Wikipedia community look like a bunch of shallow vindictive bastards at worst and obsessive navel-gazers at best.", but that it shouldn't be important enough for others to want to oust someone. Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53

  • Have you seen my contribution history? I think I can afely say I am one of the more active people on the project, and I absolutely stand by what I said at that time. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The change to the Not orphan template.

Why are fair-use images no longer allowed to use this template? The main objection to the template, I thought, was that it was being misused to protect fair-use images that were not linked to mainspace articles (that is, they were used on User pages, or truly orphaned). But what about fair-use images that are linked, but by text and not directly? Does this mean that all fair-use images must be directly linked to a mainspace article, and that text-linking for fair-use images is not allowed? I've looked at the fair-use criteria at WP:NONFREE, and I don't see that mentioned anywhere. I'm just trying to understand this, because it seems to me that there is a legitimate use for {{notorphan}} applied to fair-use images. What needs to be changed is the abuse of the template, not its coverage. --ShelfSkewed talk 06:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfree images can only be used under a fair-use rationale. The deletion debate for the template makes it pretty clear that use in the case of unfree images is problematic, to say the least. We cannot have this template used to keep unfree images not actively used in article space. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue

The issue is that when I go to Image:Mr. Saxon new trailer.jpg I see that the uploader initially gave a relatively low quality image and then uploaded a higher quality image over the top of it. The lower quality image is more in keeping with our non-free image criteria (though there are still problems). If possible I'd like to revert to the older image but I can't see how to do that. --Tony Sidaway 09:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That did not work well. I hit the revert version link, which looks as if it ought to do the needful, and it created a blank image... I'll re-upload the low res version. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also delete the high quality versions of all the images I uploaded, please? Thanks, Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 12:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep question

I am the person who started the Eep MfD and just added evidence on the RfC you opened. I have never participated in a RfC/User before and am willing to certify, but am frankly uncertain if adding evidence is enough. If I need to do something else, could you please let me know (and sorry for not knowing the procedure). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have tried and failed to resolve the issue then you should sign that section; if you endorse the evidence then sign that. I think it is likely we will have enough people to ensure the case is addressed. I am not in favour of a rigid format, so sign where you add, agree where you agree, and add views (e.g. types of problem behaviour) where you see them. People will refactor if there's a problem with where you put stuff. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoskepticism

Hi, when I read your recent comment about the word Pseudoskeptic at the Paranormal RfA I thought I would draw your attention to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_16#Category:Pseudoskepticism. You didn't comment on this CfD at the time, so I wondered if it came to your notice. All water under the bridge now, of course, as it was closed as 'keep as no consensus' some time ago. Regards, — BillC talk 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did not see it, of course, or I would have commented. Sadly I can't even hope to keep on top of the deletion noms for utter tripe these days, there is so much of it. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Inaccuracies of Medieval II

We have discussed the historical inaccuracies at great length and apparently achieved some sort of a compromise. You barge in and take away the entire section without even attempting to discuss the matter on the discussion page. I find that behaviour rude. I have reverted the article. -Sensemaker

  • Yup, because it was OR and because you gratuitously forked it. You could always ry citing reliable secondary sources who address the issue. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8th Armored Division

You removed a source citation on the above claiming WP:RS. Reading the page cited, it states that it is a guideline, not policy. Further, the page cited was maintained by the unit's veteran's organization. AFIK, that makes it a primary source.--Lepeu1999 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - which is why I have the additional citation of the Leach book - a published secondary source. Given the WP - as quoted here
  • "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
Given that Leach is a reputable secondary source (it's the official Division History sanctioned by the US Army) and given that the primary source in question is the actual veterans association for the field arty regiment - and it is, discounting it because they use Geocities to host seems to me unfair - then the amalgamation of the 2 seems to be an example of the encouraged standard rather then a violation of it. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just discussing. I'm making an issue of it only because the peer review from the Mil Hist project recommended a wider range of source material - and there are less out there then you'd think at this level of granularity. I'd like to be able to keep it in.--Lepeu1999 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it!--Lepeu1999 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help, that's kinda spilled over

From what I understand, two folks went to war on an articles, and it kinda looks like both sides are using confirmed sockpuppets, and it's spilled over to WP:CN. It may be a "pox on all your houses" type situation, the primary users are User:JRod2 and User:Mike Sorensen. Both sides have taken it to my talk page (one after a question on how CN discussions work, the other asking to see his side of things). If you could take a look, and decide what needs to be done? (Maybe both sides take it down to one and only one account, and both let known if the edit war continues, it's up the DR tree and to ArbCom, maybe? SirFozzie 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be happy to block Jrod2 and his socks as well, but I can't find evidence of the kind of overlapping edits seeking to pretend to greater support that I see from the other guy. Actually I suspect that Mike Sorensen is OK really, but has been pushed over the brink by a tedious spammer - that's how it looks anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps an unblock of Mike Sorensen, and a final warning to both jrod and Mike Sorensen to solve their issues and work together with NO MORE SOCKPUPPETS, or off to ArbCom (who will look at these shenanigans with even more of a jaundiced eye then we do?), or if there is further sockpuppeting, just simply being invited to leave, period? SirFozzie 15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, before you decide that I have made a spam, please see what I posted on February 28, 2007. [6] That's all I can find. I erased everything. There is no "spam" after that date. And, If I had wanted to spam WP, why would I leave the name of the person who wrote the article on? Or, even sign my own username? See: [7] Is this behavior consistent with someone who spams WP? It was a mistake, I was a total newbie. Why can't you believe me? Is this behavior consistent with someone who spams WP? Yes, I had Evinatea, but after that, I had to stop using it, please check contribs [8], notice that I used the Evinatea account one more time just to give thanks a kind supporter. If you find time I beg of you to read the incident report [9]. Thanks for your attention.Jrod2 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing you should know about Mike Sorensen. I gave him a chance for the second time (As Jrod2) to explain why the article had always the same interviewer so, I asked Mike Sorensen if he could provide more interviews, not by The G-Man, but by other known and reputable journalists, supporting Art Sayecki views on the subject of "Artmastering" (See [10]), he accused me of making a personal attack against him and Scott G, "The G-Man” (See: [11]).

He next accused me of being a "sock puppet account" of another user. This unknown user came in that day to apologize to Mike Sorensen for being rude to him in the past (See: [12]) and to respectfully request that article not be included on the mastering page again. (See: [13])

Believe me, I was not attacking anyone. I was only making inquiries to establish that the mastering engineer and his studio, Art Sayecki, has proven notability and not placed on the page for pure financial gain. he unleashed his puppets and attacked me. Did he acted in good faith? You can read the whole story about this article he wanted in the audio mastering page here See: [14]). I apologize, I won't be ranting on your page anymore.Jrod2 16:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jrod2, I believe you, but your actions in pursuit of Mike Sorensen have been very disruptive, and we really do not need your fight here. Please make nice with him, or simply avoid him. If you think he's doing Bad Things, call the cavalry. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar username

I found User:JustThisGuy... he doesn't seem to be trying to be an impostor but the username is surprisingly similar. —Dark•Shikari[T] 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80.176.82.42

Someone #Redirecting to you 80.176.82.42 is spamming my talk page. I will assume good faith that it is not you. EnviroGranny 18:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming my talk page, thank you. EnviroGranny 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I considered you to be displaying "Crass stupidity". Let's be bluntly honest here, you are a little person pretending to be a big person. Here is another one just like you: Guy's Twin. EnviroGranny


Your speedy deletion of article 'Men in skirts'

JzG, please justify your speedy deletion of the 'Men in skirts' article. Clause G4 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion applies only if an article has already been deleted by the Articles for Deletion process, and the recreated article is essentially the same. As far as I am aware, from the article history and talk page, the 'Men in skirts' article had not been through the AfD process. Even if it had, it is highly unlikely that the article you deleted was essentially the same, because of the amount of editing that had taken place recently. Man in a skirt 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I reviewed the deleted article and it's pretty clearly recreated content... the article names do not have to be the same, the wording doesn't have to be the same... all that matters is that the intent is the same, and this general theme has been through AfD already. It's not notable enough to get an article of its own regardless of title. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

How simple would it be for an arrangement to be created where both groups of editors currently in dispute mutually agree to refrain from nominating or voting in Arbuthnot (or Irish republican, but there haven't been any of those for a while) related AfD debates, so rather than (allegedly) partisan editors voting (and arguing in the case of Vintagekits and others) and muddying the waters, a clear consensus from editors who aren't involved is gained? Would that be easily enforceable?

I've put details of the partisan voting here. I will voluntarily agree to this right now, but I think some editors may need a slight nudge to get them to agree. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney303 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that avoiding each other, or some kind of truce, is an excellent idea. Also, seeing if you can work together on a subject on which you have partial agreement, and see if you can come to respect each other as editors and accommodate your differences. This sounds like motherhood and apple pie, but it's incredibly difficult to do and can make for some excellent content, which reflects all sides of a difficult issue fairly. Some of our content on the Arab-Israeli conflict is like this. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

I think if you reread the WP:OWN and WP:NOT#Bureaucracy and reanalyze the situation based on my side of the story you may have a different opinion. Please advise. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_24&oldid=129368129"