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 18:20, 21 June 2007 (→ColScott semi protect: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:Why create an account?
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #294
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

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.


Today was an interesting day for me, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As well as exchanging emails with people spanning pretty much the entire gamut from banned trolls to Jimbo, I had a talk with Danny and another with Jeff Merkey. And you know something? Despite deep-seated differences about many things of pressing importance to the project and its future, the one thing that was never in doubt was that all of us - Jimbo, Danny, Jeff, various admins and several long-standing editors and former admins - want the same thing.

We want to build a credible online encyclopaedia.

We may disagree about how best to do that, what precisely constitutes credible, what should be done to attract the right kinds of people, how ready we should be to kick out the wrong kinds of people, but in the end there is no doubt that success is going to look pretty much the same to all of us, at least from the outside. It's going to look a lot like Wikipedia does right now, almost certainly with some form of stable versions (which will be a massive boon in fighting vandalism, perhaps allowing me to get back to writing articles more - this may not be altogether a good thing). It's going to have a many fewer "biographies" of kids who once did something stupid or maybe whose friends did something stupid, many fewer news stories of no lasting historical or societal consequences, a tighter focus on sourcing and good writing.

Hell, even Larry Sanger wants the same thing. Everybody who has been involved with Wikipedia in more than a trivial capacity seems to be fundamentally in agreement on the core objective. We have built an online encyclopaedia, we proved that could be done. Step 2 is to make it more credible. Right now it is a curate's egg - parts of it are excellent.

I suspect we all share much the same general view of the enemies of this aim. Trolls. Vandals. Abusers of the project. You can abuse the project in many ways: self-promotion, pursuing your external political or personal agenda, violating the privacy of others, harassment, perpetuating the harassment of others. There are some things it is safe to leave to other sites.

If your aim is the same as mine, then we probably are not going to have a problem getting along. And if we do, it's because we haven't had a talk a bout it. You can send me email. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Natalina Mathias

You have put a tag on this article so that it cannot be created. I dont mind but i think that you should not have put siliness as the reason because it is a true article and i just could not get enough information. I am a member of the Lari family as it says in the article

HHO

You said this has been deleted numerous times, always for the same concern: lack of verifiable independent evidence

What exactly do we need verifiable independent evidence for? There's a whole list of verifiable, reliable source references. — Omegatron 18:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been completely ignored by any scientific journals, rather like aetherometry (see "what links here" for the deletion debates). As you will see in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience I have nothing against including notable bollocks provided that we can show from unassailable sources without opening the door to weasels that it is indeed bollocks. HHO is snake oil, and as far as I can tell it's been immediately recognised as such and discounted without further investigation by anyone who would have the resources to prove it. Feel free to prove me wrong here. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A third party source is required, in accordance with WP:RS, to substantiate the claim that HHO is snake oil, otherwise such a claim falls under the category of WP:OR. Noah Seidman 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I say WP:IAR, WP:COI*, WP:DICK, WP:CABAL and not the least WP:BOLLOCKS. So I've won because I've used more WP:CAPITALIZEDGIBBERISH than you. Ben Gurion!
On a more serious notes: Yes, the tightened interpretation of WP:V, the disregard for experts and other factors, some of them good, some of them bad, conspire to forbid us to be Debunkers'R'Us. But that doesn't force us to run adverts for hoaxes.
--Pjacobi 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracenote

Would you have any objection to me unprotecting this page? There hasn't been much discussion regarding the protection, and the protection seems unnecessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without response, I've disabled the page protection. Let me know if you think the article should be re-protected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

There are massive assumptions of bad faith here, including: "This appears to be POV pushing." in response to a statement that the article contained nothing but quotations; use of "your leaders" in addressing every other editor, with the implicit assumption that every other editor is a Mormon; "you and your fellow LDS editors"; "Please troll elsewhere." in response to a simple discussion of what the article title implies with respect to article scope; and "This sounds like POV pushing (yet again) to me, and desire to delete the article since it is embarassing to the LDS movement." in response to a quite proper request for "neutral, reliable secondary sources that have explored these topics" and a quite proper statement that "reliance only upon primary sources and a couple of critical and apologetic secondary sources will simply lead to a bunch of original research, as the synthesis of the sources presents a picture of Mormon teachings that has been developed nowhere else but Wikipedia.". This has been repeated on other talk pages, such as here.

This appears not to be confined to one article, moreover. Here, for example, an ordinary edit by COGDEN involving no administrator tools whatsoever is mislabelled as an "LDS Church member violating WP:V, WP:COI, WP:RS and misusing admin tools".

You are mentoring this editor, I believe. A strong word appears to be in order. Remind xem that labelling everyone else that one interacts with a "troll" or a "POV pusher" is actually to be those very things onesself. Uncle G 09:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contents deleted.
Info Giver Guy 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's trolling. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I'm glad that you now know what you are dealing with. Allowing edits in the Cherokee area would be fine, but when someone has a clear disdain for a specific religion, perhaps its not the best idea allowing him to continue working in that space. Info Giver Guy 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to ban all Mormons from editing those articles due to bias, but that's never going to happen, so in this case we just have to let the opposing parties work it out between themselves. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd ban us on the basis of belief, not behavior? Wow. alanyst /talk/ 15:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how far your logic goes. Would you ban all scientists from editing articles about science? Would you ban all doctors from editing articles about health? Would you ban all Native Americans from editing articles about their tribes? I hope you see where this logic leads... --Friendly Neighbour 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Science is not a belief system. The whole point of science is to be open to new ideas that challenge what you currently know and understand. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I am a scientist. But we have strong opposition on many WP articles by people who would be happy to say that science is too serious to leave it to scientists. It's the same story in the case of Mormons - remember that many Mormon related articles are about the community, not the belief system. Mormons can be biased but their detractors too. Using your logic, we would have to ban everyone on articles (s)he has strong opinions, including her/his field of expertise. Closing up Wikipedia would be a better solution (well, the end result would be the same, anyhow). --Friendly Neighbour 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Science "too serious" for scientists? Presumably these would be creationists? Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creationist are just the biggest and most organized group. But we have also climate skeptics, different kinds of oculists and every colour of pseudo-physicists you can imagine. --Friendly Neighbour 05:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. And per numerous arbitration cases, it is much better to leave editing of science articles to scientists and not those assorted POV-pushers. The relevance of the creationist perspective in evolutionary biology is close to zero. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. However, I still would advise against any policy change banning creationists (or Mormons) on sight. In the case of science articles, our rules work: we (the scientists) have the proper sources (peer-reviewed journal articles etc.). They have hand waving and original research. I'm not sure how it is in the case of Mormons but I hope that the editors who have verifiable sources are able to prevail n Wikipedia even on emotionally loaded subjects. --Friendly Neighbour 13:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, Do you actually believe this? I certainly wouldn't agree with this belief of yours. Among numerous foundational beliefs, there's the idea that behavior that occurs repeatedly is to be taken more seriously than behavior that occurs only once, the idea that observations are to be given more credence than ideas, and then there's epistemology, logic, theory of inference, and much more. Perhaps the most dangerous dogmatist is the uneducated dogmatist who lacks awareness of his (or her) dogma. Better to be aware of the assumptions one makes in life, and the fact that they are assumptions, even if one thinks them the best available. Agree that although this user may be pushing civility boundaries, and expressing a desire to get rid of users with particular POVs probably isn't going to help things. Believe that everyone has biases, but don't want to push the point here. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I see your views with bias, but I'm not talking about that. It's the behavior that's most troubling, and its happened many times before. I'm sure my comments are still trolling to you, but it appears this individual cannot maintain any sort of civility when dealing with a different POV in this specific area. Given, he appears to be making good progress in his Cherokee articles. Working together with other editors and exhibiting a great deal of self control, but you said it yourself, "Cool it". How many more "Cool it" requests will it take? Info Giver Guy 16:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a little about the consequences of Guy's idea [I meant this Guy: Guy (Help!)] (I sincerly hope he was joking but a little "what-if" is sometime useful). If we banned Mormons from editing Mormon related articles it would not solve any problem (if one exists which I doubt). The edit wars would simply move to WP:ANI, taking the form of witch-hunting of suspected Mormons. Can you imagine the pandemonium? And the bad press WP would obviously get? I think this thought experiment shows clearly why we should not change the present system of not banning editors because of their national, racial, professional or confessional affiliation. --Friendly Neighbour 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with Guy's and your views on the subject regarding bias, but with one caveat: editors should be able to "play nice" with others. My comments end here on the subject. Thanks to everyone for not immediately putting me into the "trolling" category and actually listening to what I have to say. Info Giver Guy 16:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd love to ban all Mormons from editing those articles due to bias...." Golly, that's scary. Archie Bunker was only funny because he was powerless. David in DC 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little shocked by all of this. I see numerous comments verifying the obvious bias I was seeing. I can understand Uncle G comments, but he seems to be saying "Yes there is bias but you are not allowed to point it out." OK, then I won't. COGDEN was inserting comments into the article which sources on the talk page refuted regarding the statements of Brigham Young AFTER THE PAGE HAD BEEN PROTECTED - his explanation was "I did not agree with protecting the page. What does that mean? Admins can break the rules that apply to editors?. I do not think so. I am going to back away from the LDS articles since my involvement has now raised the level of awareness of the community as to the problem -- a problem even Guy on his own talk page has stated exists (along with other commenters). The problem appears to have elevated eyes into the situation, so in six months or so, I expect things will improve. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jeff, what Uncle G is saying is that Wikipedia is not a campaign platform. Once again, the answer is to check your personal bias at the door and go back to reliable sources. I do not edit articles on the LDS or Witnesses because I view them as heretics (which is also why I owuld like to ban them from editing their own articles, which I view as grossly over-sympathetic). You should not be pursuing an agenda in this way. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It appears we have similiar views. I do not have an agenda with LDS people as has been claimed. I do have an agenda for accurate materials in this project, and I am more than put back by the grossly POV editing I have seen. I also have a tendency to battle the mongol hoards single handedly. You bring up a good point on the matter. I also believe that the level of awareness of this problem we both seem to see the same way has been elevated and perhaps it will start getting fixed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd like to ban all Mormons from editing Mormonism-related articles? Great idea! While we're at it, let's ban Christians from editing Christianity-related articles, ban Atheists from editing Atheism-related articles, ban Behaviorists from editing Behaviorism-related articles, ban Agnostics from editing Agnostic-related articles, ban Jews from editing Judaism-related articles, ban Humanists from editing Humanism-related articles, etc. That sounds like an excellent way to achieve balance. (/end sarcasm) The Jade Knight 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh no, their POV agrees with mine, that's fine. Actually I only want to ban zealots form editing articles on their topic of interest. Scientologists and JWs are a much bigger problem than Mormons, IMO. You will notice that I don't get involved in these topics much, because I have the sense to know that my perspective is not neutral. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I am pretty much tapped out on this Merkey fellow. My position is that editing is a privilege and not a right. When you have an editor with as long a history as this chap making such ridiculous claims and parades them as facts, when just simply his simple opinion, why is he allowed to continue. If there is ever a vote to ban this editor for life, please let me know, I will be at the front of the line. Mentoring is one thing, but being a baby sitter is something entirely unneeded on Wikipedia. Any one that needs this much attention is too much. Also, what is the warning on his page that you are the individual to talk to about him? Somehow he has achieved the position that anyone that corrects his edits will only achieve having his correction noted on his discussion page because you are his knight on a white horse to protect him from all those who think differently than him? This seems to be the proverbial bending over so far that one's head is firmly being planted where the sun is no longer shining. We are entering the realm of the absurd with this editor and it is not beneficial for the community. As an aside, zealots of all persuasions lessen the quality of Wikipedia; Merkey is just such an individual. Why bother? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image disputes

Per the {{dated dfu}} template, you're asked to notify the uploader of the tag.

Re: the license, is the second bullet point ("on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation") to be treated as a direct follow-on from the first bullet point? I've been treating the second one as a standalone rationale. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the result of a complaint to OTRS. Per WP:FUC, screenshots are to be used for critical commentary on the film itself. I do not believe that fair use iages are allowed in infoboxes at all. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be too much effort for you to move the image into another part of the article? - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking question

If one were to wish to block someone, and to also block their IP address, and any possible socks from that address, which boxes should be checked? (And for that matter, is it possible - presuming a static IP of some sort, of course...) - jc37 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of request to undelete "Image:Harvest-Because I Am.ogg" image.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Harvest-Because I Am.ogg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jamie L. 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy,
Does Wikipedia not keep archived images that have been nuked? I am fine with re-uploading the image if need be, but I think it would be easier to simply re-word the restored image's fair use justification. I didn't save the fair use justification I used, and would appreciate seeing it again so as to have an easier time of restoring the image. If it's not possible to restore the image, and the fair use justification I previously used is still available somewhere, could you possibly copy and paste it to my talk page so that I can access the text again?
Thanks for any further help/advice,
Jamie L. 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am really struggling to care, but I have undeleted it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for undeleting the image. I will now focus on trying to keep the article from being deleted.
Jamie L. 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Edits?

Hi Guy, its me. I just looked at the dynamic submission page where I asked for a deletion review and I noticed, you said something like I have no main edits? Not to sound stupid, but what are they? Articles that are stubs are not main edits? I am just wondering what main edits are.

Thanks! --Akc9000 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

Guy -- I'd appreciate if you could look at my nomination in Eugene Martin Ingram. I refrained from speedy deleting the article.. the debate ended up closed because of a lot of early participation, but I don't think any of the comments had been from people familiar with the recent BLP-related issues. Was I off-base here? What do you think? Mangojuicetalk 00:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, here's the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram. Mangojuicetalk 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Land Sock Puppets?

This article that I afd. As an admin do you have the ability to see if these users are real? Could an admin tell me is these people are actual users or sock puppets?

Seth Finkelstein Jasonmurphy ? This article is a total waste and I cannot believe it is still in deletion review. These two users do not have user pages or talk pages but they are asking for a strong keep. I just don't get it. --Akc9000 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Hi, I have all of the copyrights to the pictures that I am putting on Wikipedia. I have never put up a page before and I do not think I am citing them correctly. As a result, I have been accused of blatant copyright infringement, which isn't true. I saw that you were the person that last took down the page I created, and then blocked me from trying to edit it and fix the problem. I'm really sorry that I didn't put the page up correctly, but if you could help me I would really appreciate it!!! Thanks.

So now this is in WP namespace

Wikipedia:Policy shopping. - Crockspot 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (shrug). It still sucks. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have to recheck the !votes in the previous AfD, but I'm pretty sure most of the keeps were based on it being in user space. I don't have a problem with it being in his user space. What would be the best course? Requested moves, or another AfD with the requested remedy of a move? - Crockspot 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Or maybe a drv? - Crockspot 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the speedy deletion of "Category:Wikipedians who listen to Harvest".

Hello,

I see that you speedily deleted the category "Wikipedians who listen to Harvest." Your reasoning for this was "CSD C1: Underpopulatedcategory". In reading CSD C1 myself, I see that it states "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories . . ." I know that the category was not empty, simply underpopulated - as you stated in your reasoning. As such, I feel that the category should not have been speedily deleted. Wouldn't it belong in "Category:Underpopulated categories"?

I would appreciate your feedback,

Jamie L. 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

Just a few more questions. Don't all categories start with one entry? Is there a Wikipedia guideline which states how much time an underpopulated category should be given to be expanded before it is deleted?

My category was not unique. There are many categories similar to it at Category:Wikipedians by musician. Should all of these be deleted as well?

Sincerely,

Jamie L. 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was only ever one entry. There was only ever one user with the userbox. There was pretty much only one editor of the article. There is pretty much only one editor linking the article to other articles. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guy,

You're correct on all your points. If you have the time, I'd still appreciate answers to my questions (at least the second one - regarding a time limit for underpopulated categories).

If the category must be deleted now because of underpopulation, would it be acceptable to create it at a later date if it could be populated by other users as well? What would be the minimum number allowed?

Thank you for your time and efforts in refining Harvest related content,

Jamie L. 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy,

I highly doubt this is Wikipedia policy. Maybe you could direct me to someone more familiar with category policy? If the category isn't allowable, this should be easy to explain. I'm really trying to get some answers here, and so far it's been pretty difficult. I don't have your experience with this site, and your help would be appreciated.

Like I've said, I'm not an expert on category policy. But I feel I may have grounds for a deletion review if you cannot prove that the category no longer belongs on Wikipedia. I might get shot down there, but I think I might get some better answers to my questions.

Again, I look forward to your response,

Jamie L. 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

I know you've been mentoring him, but he did some strange things today, and I'm actually questioning his mental stability or issues with the english language, as he cannot comply with simple requests for information from his citations, as other editors cannot find the information he says is in teh cites. Please review his edit history today, primarily at Talk:Reformed Egyptian and the resulting AfD. I'm not sure if it is he is not mentally capable or if there is a language barrier. He just doesn't understand what is written, and I'd really like to work with him, but we are talking past each other. I'd love to see someone with as much passion and pride in his heritage as he has to transfer that into making wikipedia even better within his areas of expertise, but he needs serious schooling in how to do it. How he is doing now is just not cutting it. -Visorstuff 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he has asked for a mediator at Talk:Reformed Egyptian and refuses to talk to me. I'm taking off for the night, but your help would be appreciated. -Visorstuff 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An incidentally, my apologies if my comment above came across as accusing him of being mentally ill. That was not what was meant. I was questioning whether or not he understood what I was asking. Having asked the same question at least five times, I questioned that he was capable of understanding my question or if there was a language barrier. -Visorstuff 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the comments of this admin I am "mentally unstable" a feeding frenzy has ensued over at the SCOX message board. I can only hope PC Week doesn't write an article about it. The basis of the issues today were predominantly LDS editors going into shock when I managed to decipher a Mormon document claimed to be "Reformed Egyptian" (was actually some Sequoyah Syllabary characters Joseph Smith apparently copied then claimed were the basis of the Book of Mormon). Needless to say, the LDS editors flipped out and claimed I was "mentally deranged" for even suggesting it. I AFD'd an article because these same editors will not allow anyone to edit it and the content was, for lack of a better description, unencyclopedic. I withdrew the AFD after being threatened and told I am "mentally unstable." Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To both Jeff Merkey and JzG, I do think Visorstuff's comments were uncalled for (though he does not seem to have meant to do harm, it was just an unthinking thing to say) and it's understandable why Mr. Merkey would be upset by them. However I think his description of what happened on the "Reformed Egyptian" article is simply inaccurate. I am not a Mormon (hell, I'm not even a theist!) and I had a problem with the edits he was making (though I did not participate in any of the revert warring) because they were original research. This was clearly the main issue at hand, and the comments about stability were an unfortunate side effect of the discussion/debate over whether or not Jeff Merkey's "deciphering" of the Mormon document could be included given WP:OR.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. Let's get back to work. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, because an apology was not offered. It was not offered because I did not do or say anything worth apologizing for (recently at least, over the years though...). It's certainly not my place to apologize for Visorstuff, even if I found his comments to be quite unfortunate. I posted this because I felt you were misrepresenting what happened on the Reformed Egyptian article. It was not only LDS folks who had a problem with your edits (I did too, so did John Foxe for that matter, who is not a Mormon), and the real problem was OR.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep kicking people while they are down? Nice guy. John Foxe manipulates edit summaries and shuffles talk page comments -- I consider this exeptionally dishonest behavior. If you support such actions, this speaks for itself. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I'm sorry if you took my post as kicking you when you were down as that was not even remotely my intention. I think my previous comment made clear that I believe some of the comments made about you during the debate were uncalled for and that I understood and sympathized with the fact that you were upset. But I did not make any personal comments (about you or anyone else), thus I was not "apologizing" (just pointing out something I disagreed with) and thought it was odd of you to say I was. I don't know much about John Foxe and his edits, but I do know he is a non-Mormon editor who had issues with the material you were including in the article, and that's the only reason I brought him up. I hope this explains my point of view and apologies if my last comment was unclear. As you said, let's get back to work.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Matthew's Churches

You need to explain yourself... you're removing sourced content and giving no reason. --W.marsh 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of the stuff was from published news articles that haven't been retracted by their publishers, as far as I know. If they really had a legal case the organization would go after the newspapers, not us, but as you've shown we're easier to scare. At any rate, none of this exempts you from the basic courtesy of just explaining this instead of reverting with no reason. --W.marsh 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of it was interepreted, other text was disputed by the subject. Three OTRS team members have looked at it, me, ZScout and Swatjester. Feel free to expand on what we have now, but please don't revert, because some of the minor text changes are in response to specific points made by their lawyers. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without seeing the letter from the lawyers I would just make the same edits again, I'm sure, as all of my edits were made in good faith and carefully. I really couldn't care less about this church it's just frustrating to have content axed like that with no serious effort to restore it. --W.marsh 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's accusing you of malice, the problem is that some of the outside sources are interpreting other outside sources in a contentious way. What we have now relies on the most reliable sources we could find - state governments and the better business bureau for example - and avoids the polemical sites which are out there. It's pretty much certain that this is a scam, and they actually want the whole article removed, but with care there should be no need for that. I know it's frustrating, I had the same problem with some edits I made to Giovanni di Stefano. I was able to see the ticket that time, but this tme out I can't even see the ticket any more because it's been moved to the legal queue, and I have no access to that. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were mainstream newspapers though, some of the biggest in their region (Texas/the American Mid-South). Granted they were reporting in part on information from an apparently much-hated watchdog group, but nevertheless it seems a clear case where if there was any real legal issue here the lawyers would go after the newspapers, not Wikipedia. But newspapers have legal staffs, we apparently don't any more? I guess the volunteers are doing what they can but it's frustrating, this was encyclopedic content and we've been bullied into removing it. --W.marsh 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more that a story which appears once in one edition of a paper is regarded as ancient history by the following day, and an old story is rarely worth challenging, but when it is perpetuated through Wikipedia, any inaccuracy becomes a permanent rather than a transient problem. For example, one of the sources says that James Ewing's lawyer told Robert Tilton that he uses a computer program to target the poorest zip codes, but he says he does not, will not reveal his actual process (a trade secret), and his lawyer says that this is a misrepresentation of what was actually said, and that the paper has accepted it, but that it is perpetuated by those with an agenda against the company church. It is not as straightforward as it looks, I think. I have already told the lawyer that we are in the business of verifiability, not truth, and that if a publication says X then we report that the publication says X, but there is definite merit in working back up gradually from the best sources we can find, and being so neutral in our wording that not even the most rabid lawyer could accuse us of a hatchet job. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thanks for your explanation... I really do appreciate it. The one point I do disagree on is that newspaper stories, especially investigative ones like these were, are very important, look no further than Watergate :-) At any rate, it's frustrating that we're in this situation though... I still feel like we've been bullied, but without legal counsel of our own, I guess there was no real alternative. --W.marsh 15:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, investigative newspaper stories can be very important. The thing that one notices about Watergate is that everybody else picked it up and ran with it; most of the stories in this case appear to have been one-offs. We're looking for good, in-depth coverage and stories that spread and were built on by others. Maybe you can help there. of course we're not inclined to give anyone a free pass just because their lawyer sends a letter, especially when all the sources call them a scammer, but I think a degree of circumspection is called for on this one. Thanks for understanding :-) Guy (Help!) 15:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A spammer writes...

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

Tests

It seems that your powers of prediction are about to be tested. I hereby name this JzG's Mull of Kintyre Test Test. ☺ Uncle G 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If only. Well, maybe it's not so bad at that. British TV is still strongly influenced by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association as-was, and Mary Whitehouse's influence was so deep-rooted that a porn magazine was named after her. Terrestrial roadcasters in the UK do not show actual sex and even in documentaries there is not one erection to be seen. We've seen a man die on screen, tastefully done, but never to my knowledge an honest-to-god hard-on. Go figure. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the funniest part about all of this is that Whitehouse had a porn magazine named after her. Are you serious? That is incredible. I'm now impatiently awaiting the launch of a Tipper Gore-named porn mag. Rockstar (T/C) 20:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Vote

Hi, I wanted to wait until the RfA was over to avoid inflaming things (and I always thought until the end that something would happen and I wouldn't make it), but I understand where you are coming from, and I will be VERY cautious on such things while I get used to having the mop, and I will take your comments very seriously as something to avoid. Even when you were opposing me, you were saying things that I can use in the future to be better. Thank you for hopefully making me a better admin. SirFozzie 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Guidance

User:Indiandish is adding personal information to articles that may be inappropriate, (height I don't have a problem with, (even if they are using the metric system for Americans like Halle Berry), but I tend to believe that cup size/bust size is not encyclopedic. He's been reverted numerous times on the Amanda Tapping article, and has apparently switched to IP addresses (see [1]. I've gotten up to the 2nd level warning on the IP address. Would you consider this possibly an edit war, and I could issue a short block if they continue to add this information, or am I off the plot on this one? Thanks. SirFozzie 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about what you consider creepy. The Japanese blood type theory of personality was explained to you when you made the same comment about creepiness on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ai Bandō, remember. The true problem here is verifiability. It's a fair bet that xe has no source for Tapping's vital statistics, because they are simply not public knowledge. As such, I recommend insisting upon sources with the full weight of the Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. A block for repeatedly posting unverifiable biographical material is one thing, and unlikely to be controversial. But a block for being a "creepy obsessive" is quite another. The former can be objectively justified. The latter cannot. Uncle G 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen Segev

The Ronen Segev article has been deleted by Jimbo and protected by you with a reference to an OTRS ticket number. Since you probably know the details about the situation (or can at least look them up on OTRS), could you take a look at the page's What links here? I already deleted one forgotten redirect, but there are still two articles (Ten O'Clock Classics and List of Juilliard School people) with links to the deleted article. --cesarb 00:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS deletion

Guy, please check your e-mail. I've sent a message regarding one of your OTRS deletions. If appropriate (i.e., if no sensitive personal information is involved, and so on), please post to the article's talk page so that the discussion may be available for view by others. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How a personal attack?

Seriously, the "evil helper monkeys" was a quote. Each of those statements could be cited. I agree absolutely that those of us who have been editing are not friends, not friendly, and not pleasant about this subject, but, indeed, the people who wrote the page are similarly not friends, not friendly, and not pleasant about the subject. So, one answer would have been not to have a page telling people how to use a non-WP service on Wikipedia. That was rejected, of course. So, if it's on Wikipedia, it's a damned Wikipedia page. If it's a Wikipedia page, it's open to editing to people who are not true believers. I won't war on it, but, given the way Friday was treated, the way all dissent has been treated, the way that this is a special "this thing of ours" on Wikipedia, it's crossing a line to say, "We demand that we get a page maintained at our version on Wikipedia." If it takes citing every single statement, that can be arranged, but I suspect that the authors of the page won't like it much. Geogre 14:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put this back [2] much of it had been there for ages and was by those editors who want to write the page wothoit my help. No probs easy mistake though. Giano 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section was incredibly snide about James F, and read more like an ED page than a Wikipedia project space page. As I said, humour, fine, snide, no thanks. I'm all for being funny and irreverent. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I completely oppose going back and forth on the edits, but, if it's a wiki page, it's a wiki page, and that means edits by people who don't agree with the first authors. Some of the edits were mean. It's better just to tell the truth and to resist all temptations to glorify oneself (JamesF and David, "I own all of it") or call them names ("largely inactive editors" would be the most accurate; why doesn't David use his time on Xenu 2 or something, instead of "how admins irc is the glory of the 21st century and the sole unindictable good"). Geogre 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a wiki page. And I edited it to remove some snide and unhelpful remarks. This is bad in what way? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I'm rather confused about the Rosalind Franklin COI thing. I wrote a note on AN/I, please respond and clear this up for me. KP Botany 16:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you and I haven't always seen eye to eye

...but you are an admin coach. User:Dgies has agreed to take me, but he wishes to have a co-coach. I was wondering if you would like to help me please. Work in progress at User:N/admincoaching. -N 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon W

Say, boss, someone stuck a {{references}} tag on the Wessely article.[3] Now I remember that you wrote much of that content, so I was wondering if you remembered which sources you used to compose this material. JFW | T@lk 10:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

That was from me in case you weren't sure, forgot to add a name. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 12:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy. I had went over it with ONiH and a couple other admins, but while I was 90% sure (till the fake titles thing), I didn't want my first block to be a bad/controversial one! :D. (I wonder if WP:BOLD applies to that... (yeah, I know it doesn't) SirFozzie 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew who it was from, I had no problem accepting the evidence, ONIH has flushed out enough Barber socks by now that I think he knows the smell of them. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IM+

Hello Guy, Based on Wikipedia guidelines, could you explain why the deletion review was closed. I thought I had followed all the instructions. I appreciate your help and explanation in advance. Leanalove 19:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Requests from single purpose accounts are very often closed. Especially when the articles have been deleted several times, including reposts, and all previous versions are also by single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, all previous reposts were deleted because of the first article. The first article was really under IM+ title and I was not the author of it. It may have looked like SPAM. It was speedily deleted and the other editor did not try to contest the deletion or so it seemed. All further recreations of the article were deleted because a protection was placed for "IM+", and not because there was something wrong with the article. It is very sad, that it seems so hard to post something useful on wikipedia. Second, could you please explain "single purpose accounts"? Why no one else was given a chance to vote on the article. That's not fair. The article has reliable and verifiable third-party sources Leanalove 07:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcat

I appreciate your boldness - but you need to have a discussion on the talk page before you redirect and protect pages, as you did in Lolcat. The article had adequate sources and I don't see how it can be considered as original research. Ali (t)(c) 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It contained much original research and nothing of merit beyond what is already in image macro. It is one of several examples of image macros, so now that ED is back online the full treatemnt of lolcat can stay there while we deal with the encyclopaedic subject of image macros. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
protecting like that is an abuse of your admin powers. Please unprotect.Geni 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like that are an abuse of the project. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not covered by CSD you didn't prod and AFD is that way.Geni 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Geni - please restore the article and put it through AFD if you believe it should not exist. Use of your admin powers to circumvent the AFD process and support your editorial decision is improper. --ElKevbo 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's now on WP:AN/I. SirFozzie 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Geni as well. That was perhaps the most heavily-sourced article on an internet meme I've ever seen, with multiple references for some sentences. The phenomenon has been covered in multiple reliable sources. If you feel strongly that it should be deleted or redirected, I recommend an AFD, or at the very least obtaining some sort of consensus on the talk page. JavaTenor 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krimpet/Image macro User:Krimpet/Image macro text User:Krimpet/Image macro text User:Krimpet/Image macro image Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy that was well outside of your bounds as an admin. I have reverted the redirect and undid the protection. You know very well that the use of protection to maintain your position in an editing dispute is in violation of the protection policy. If you want the article gone, you are welcome as anyone else to take it to afd. Having admin powers does not give you the right to circumvent process to the detriment of the community. ViridaeTalk 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an extremely rude and immature reaction. I don't know what makes you think it's appropriate and acceptable because it's not. Shape and set a better example, admin. --ElKevbo 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)compare and contrast,[reply]
  • "As I said, humour, fine, snide, no thanks. I'm all for being funny and irreverent." Please compare and contrast with "Perish the thought that we should redirect a festering heap of shit to an actual encyclopaedia article" David in DC 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, compare and contrast. In the one instance individuals were named and their actions denigrated, in the lolcat case, a festering heap of shit masquerading as an encyclopaedia article was denigrated, and a vastly better and more encyclopaedic treatment of the same subject preferred. As you rightly note, no comparison. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Hi - I just wanted to drop you a note that someone has brought up a deletion review which you closed as a problem. You might want to stop by and explain to them what's up. --Haemo 04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL and improving deleted articles

Hey Guy. Sorry to keep asking questions, but a user requested I place the last version of Heart of America Sports Attractions (which was prodded, it's an old time wrestling territory, fairly influential) on a sandbox page for him to provide RS to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. ONiH brought up the fact that all the info in there has to comply with the GFDL.. Would we undelete the article ONLY when he has provided the sources, etcetera? Is it a bad idea to place a last copy of an article in someone's sandbox, due to licensing reasons, even if it's to improve the article ? Stuff in the sandbox is a grey area here, and I don't want to misstep. Thanks, man. SirFozzie

Confused

I sent you mail. Cheers! Navou 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat at CSN

[4] Cheers, Riana ⁂ 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of Proof

Is it just me or has the burden of proof shifted to the defence of an article rather than the prosecution? –– Lid(Talk) 12:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urantia Readers-Intl

Hi JzG,

If the person from Urantia Readers Intl wishes to retract their uncivil comments and personal attacks[5] on Talk:The_Urantia_Book, and have complained to the Foundation to have this done, that's fine I guess. As one of the people who was on the receiving end of the attacks, I don't have any complaint though.

The policy at WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and at WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments is that removal of attacks and uncivil comments "should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly". I wouldn't have thought these are attacks that fall into the exceptional scenario and need to go, but I accept if that determination has been made.

My comment though was in no way uncivil or an attack and so doesn't meet any reason for removal. It was a most basic request that a justification for the external link be provided. A record should show that the link was in fact being placed by a representative of Urantia Readers Intl and so was removed for that reason. The person added the link off and on for over 9 months and, who knows, may try again in the future. The person may have complained to have their own ill-chosen behavior removed but there isn't a basis for censoring legitimite comments of others. I've tried to meet the differing goals for communication to other editors with a revision to the Talk:The_Urantia_Book page, please see how that looks. Thanks. Wazronk 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The present refactored version is fine, well done. The word censorship is like a red rag to me, though, it almost without exception indicates that the person making the comment is trying to push a POV or prove a point, so I advise you not to risk the appearance of accusing me of censorship. I react very badly to that kind of thing. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you find the revision acceptable. I have extra sensitivity in terms of that thread about valid comments being removed, I react badly to being "censored", and truthfully that's what it felt like to have my comments removed. It was the second time -- this was the behavior of the person from Urantia Readers Intl before they even made any written response and got their indefinite block, they first deleted the comments, suppressing instead of engaging in dialogue to address concerns. I'm happy a solution has been found. Wazronk 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville

Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Log update

Hi JzG, you may want to update the log record here. Thanks, Crum375 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BDORT guys

I saw that you had blocked 1garden, but I noticed that the editor at whose behest he or she was acting is not blocked. Richardmalter was banned from editing that article or any other articles having to do with its subject matter by Arbcom. He was briefly blocked by SlimVirgin for allegedly trying to evade that ban, but as of now he continues to be free of any restrictions other than having standing orders not to interfere in BDORT-related articles. I'm just concerned that one (none too savvy) editor may have had to take a severe fall for another editor, who got away scot free. --Dynaflow babble 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy/ ColScott

Check out this page. He does this all the time, don't worry about it. Saturday Contribs 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvised explosive device vandalism

Hello, I read the message (Please stop now) you left for me in my User Talk page. Thanks you for communicating with me. However, I must inform you that it is not my intention to vandalise or misuse Wikipedia. I made alteration on the Improvised explosive device and I left a message on the Discussion board. I also communicated with Parsecboy. This user simply did not reply and reverted to the previous version. I do not understand why you are asking me to stop. I will now revert back the the changes I made as it it my right as a Wikipedia user. I am open and welcome to any future discussion. Thank you -- [[User::SeiteNichtGefunden|SeiteNichtGefunden]]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Radius-peergynt.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Radius-peergynt.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

You were very helpful and it was appreciated. 86.147.226.186 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tierra on Ashley

Guy, look: there was no reason to delete the Tierra on Ashley page. Did you even bother reading it? I thoroughly read everything I estimated to pertain to writing articles and I did not see anything in any Wikipedia literature that said "people cannot write articles about property they own or about themselves." No one knows more about this building than me. Why can we not educate the community on the building? I am legitimately frustrated.

You know, I am sure you are skeptical. Fine, everyone is skeptical I am learning. But if you did anything more than take a cursory look into things you would see that my company has done educational outreach like: donate an exhibit to the local museum that shows a working model of the building and all its green features. Now, that sounds self-promoting does it not? Well, maybe to a cynical skeptic who sees nothing but bad when they look at our efforts. No, as I said there is no property for sale or rent in this building. What do we gain by writing the article? We just want to give back.

  • Actually, I went out of my way to make it not advertorial. The property is PROPRIETARY. You might not understand what that means, but it means there is no way for us to financially derive benefit because we will own and use all the property in there. Now, GUY, do the NOT lazy thing (I'm sure it doesn't come naturally to you) and FIX the article rather than deleting it. You sons of bitches sure don't make it easy to become a member of the wikipedia community, not like I even give a shit anymore.
  • What you said was that the Wikipedia page was being used by your organisation as part of its mission. Wikipedia is not part of your mission. I am sure an uninvolved editor will come along and create an article, and I'm equally sure that you will be welcome to suggest content, but if you come crying to us because someone is reverting your conflict-of-interest edits and challenging you ownership of the article, then my reaction is always going to be: take your ball and play somewhere else. Sorry, I am a heartless bastard, everybody knows this. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ColScott semi protect

JzG, I strongly disagree with your decision to reduce the protection of User_talk:ColScott. The entire reason it was protected in the first place was because ColScott was using it to launch vicious personal attacks and to soapbox. Reducing it to semi so that he can post completely misses the point, because he was the person it was protected against. This is a bad idea, and he will almost certainly make attacks from it again. If he has issues with his article, he can email the foundation, as is the established procedure anyways. The reduction in protection is a mistake, and I strongly urge you to restore it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know it was him, I am discussing things with him by email, and he was talking about getting a sockpuppet so he could communicate issues about the article, which I said to him would only make things worse. I am trying to de-escalate a problem. Please trust me. If he posts attacks again it can immediately be deleted and re-protected. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, if ColScott uses his page to attack and post personal details about editors again, you may as well have done it yourself. Your "immediately" isn't immediately - I saw the last round, for example - supposing ColScott wasn't behind the threats to H, it stands to reason that it was someone who likewise saw these posts.Proabivouac 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pro, I understand your concern, but I also understand where Guy is coming from in this issue. It's a matter of "This discussion is going to happen, either via email, or via a sockpuppet page", so let's try to minimize the impact if possible. SirFozzie 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppet page wouldn't be on harassers' watchlists.Proabivouac 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or ours. If he attacks and you genuinely think it's the same as me doing it, then you can take it to the admin noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_24&oldid=139719936"