User talk:JzG/Archive 8

Beware of the tigers!

This page may contain strong opinons. You have been warned.

hello

Hello Just zis Guy, you know?

I've just seen your name of the Archive and reminds me about something :D, how are you? How is it going? -- Bonaparte talk 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoliberalism

Excellent work on converting Paleolib's apparent mixture of OR and POV into a really interesting and increasingly well-referenced article. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you have any clue whether there is something citable for any of what he wrote? I have no problem with a paragraph saying that in the blogosphere the word is used as a synonym for libertarian -- for that, the blogs themselves are primary sources, I don't think there is an NOR problem with that -- but the rest of this seems to me to be either a recapitulation of libertarianism (without, of course, any criticism, because the name is so obscure that who is going to criticize it under that name?) or sheer uncited claims, like the thing about von Mises. Again, if there is a decent citation for von Mises having invented the word, that would be great, but my suspicion is that it is based on nothing more than this blog entry: "When the Mont Pelerin Society members began to be commonly referred to as neoliberals, Ludwig von Mises wrote in correspondence that he was a paleoliberal, in contradistinction to the neos he considered to be cowardly compromisers", posted by "bkmarcus", which just doesn't cut it as a citation. Nor is a date given: even if true, this might not be the original use, since von Mises lived until '73, which means that the Scoop Jackson Democrats might have been using the term before him. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Found bkmarcus. http://www.paleoliberal.com redirects to his site. "B.K. Marcus is an amateur political economist with no formal education in the subject. He is a house husband, a faculty spouse, a dilettante, and a layabout. Once upon a time, he made a fair living as a web developer." Well, fine, sounds like he might make a decent Wikipedian, but it doesn't make him citable. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle safety

Responding to yours on Talk:Bicycle safety. --Christopherlin 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD tag

Where can I get an AfD tag?--FelineFanatic13 19:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wessely etc.

Hey man. I thought I'd take a second and drop in to tell you that you are doing a fine job with things. If you want me to, I can take up some slack from you so you can take a break for a bit and relax. I know that you've put a lot of time and energy into this, and I have every intention of seeing the article survive as intact as possible. Just remember, don't lose your cool over this. We both kinda got dragged in from different parts of Wiki, and we're both doing as good a job as we can. Keep up the good work -- and remember to smile! :-) --Vortex 02:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-Semites

The category for anti-semites is a bad idea, because you can't add references to each category entry. The list solves this problem, as long as enough people would work on it. Now, there is no place in Wikipedia, where one can look for examples of famous anti-semites. I think that's a bad thing. Grue 14:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point: the most famous examples will be found in the article on Anti-semitism. It's not that I dispute the need to be able to identify examples, it's just that lists are prone to being used for defamation. Given that any list of notable anti-semites must include Hitler, anybody else on the list is arguably being defamed by association. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Thackray

No problem. I'd never heard of him until earlier this year. I'm going to have a listen to my dad's LPs when I go visiting for Christmas. I think your article might've had the diferent birth date in - if you've got a decent source, could you update the article? Cheers. --Whouk (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikibreak

Hey Guy -- just wanted to let you know that I'm on a Wikibreak until Tuesday due to two 12-hour work shifts back-to-back between now and Tuesday night. I expect to return to work Tuesday night or Wednesday morning ready to go! --Vortex 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last Resort

Hmm. I can see your point about duplication, but i'm still not entirely happy with the changes. I'll sleep on it and see. Pydos 18:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit of a headscratcher. Actually I don't think the article is terribly helpful anyway, it's mainly a dicdef, but I think that adding things like warp cores to mainstream articles is overall not good for WP's credibility. We are too easy to dismiss as a bunch of nerds as it is :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_SWIFT_codes

Just a "hi" and a "nice wording"... sort of disappointed that AfD got a "no consensus", it seemed so clearcut to me. Best wishes. ++Lar 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. I added a comment to the article that it was incomplete and non-authoritative, even that got reverted. I simply don't understand what motivates them! Yes, it seems like a useful list in the same way a piece of paper with phone numbers seems like a useful list until you realise that you have no idea how old, how accurate or how complete it is! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to start a revert war or anything but I think it is entirely justified to point out IN the list what the issues to users might be if they rely on the info rather than going to get it the approved way. I think I'll go take a look at the article again for myself. I am an inclusionist but I just don't see that particular article as worthy of inclusion, if it MUST stay it at least ought to be disclaimed... ++Lar 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Click

The main problem with One Click (and many other advocacy groups) is that they thoroughly misunderstand science. Obtaining certain results or holding a certain hypothesis is not the same as believing in those results or being emotionally attached to that hypothesis. There is nothing to indicate that Wessely is acting out of personal interest. The One Click horde, however, seems to take everything ad hominem. Their attacks on yourself are completely unwarranted, and would have made turned a cautious supporter into a sworn enemy. Instead of respectfully disagreeing these people believe in debunking. Well, they will have a hard time with the Wikipedia NPOV army!

I say we should move that article and protect it, then have a carefully moderated discussion on the talk page. As I've stated numerous times on the talk page, well-sourced serious criticism deserves a place in the article, but not the rabid outpourings of the One Clickers. Why one click if two will do? JFW | T@lk 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've said the same several times. I am entirely in favour of making it live and seeing what happens. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC on Dominick

Gee thanks for this info. I think it supports my suspicions. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me would you mind posting an alexis link showing your finding on my talk page? Dominick ^(TALK) 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in taking me seriously. I feel a bit vindicated. I appreciate you checking out my allegations. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about the spam issues. I sometimes think I step in the proverbial "poo" a little too often. I think we should allow a cooling off. I do plan on deflecting issues to the RfC. Your fisheaters subpage is excellent. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am retelling the welsh joke to a friend who attends an Anglican High Church body under protection from Uganda.Dominick ^(TALK) 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger

I stole your tiger, added a pic too. Thanks for a great wat to work on wikipedia. It is on my user page. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat

I would give him one more chance to behave. He needs to be taught that he has to accept that not everything he wants is going to get into Wikipedia. If he does this again, then it's time for a RfC. Have you put his latest fork up for deletion yet? If not, I will. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the vote. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just tired of POV warriors. And with him it's annoying because he never gives up. He never thinks he's wrong. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a real laugh look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Used2BAnonymous - I think I've removed links to this user's website from around 110 articles so far, and I'm not at all sure that's all of them! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fisheaters

You may find this link helfull to see where his links are posted http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=linkdomain%3Afisheaters.com+site%3Awikipedia.org&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is the most prolific bout of linkspamming I can recall. The RfC is amply justified, on present evidence. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

If it interests you, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Generally speaking, I use this rule of thumb for external links: it should be included only if it confers an "intrinsic" value to the article. That is to say, the link should be particularily significant and scholarly. If someone things they should include 10+ links to it, they might as well write an article about the site instead! See you around! (And thanks for your note on my talk page - it's always nice to know other Wikipedians appreciate your edits!) :D --HappyCamper 03:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm drawn to the spam project. I've done a bit of work against the pink stuff myself :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that it can be quite draining at times...sometimes I run into copyright problems because of them, and those are hard to deal with! --HappyCamper 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The worst problem for me is that I care about things like the 3RR, and they generally don't. That and AOhell's random-IP proxy servers... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my two cents: it's great to know we've got really dedicated contributors like you. Sometimes, we need to think about ourselves too. If it saps away the fun from working on this project, then don't do it. For me, I've rarely blocked anyone for 3RRs - even if I see 5 or 6 reverts, what I usually do is write a very stern message that a nondiscriminatory block is forthcoming - and this is usually enough to stop any reverting - if it is written well enough, reverts usually stop for a few weeks! For vandalism, I also block quite sparingly. Take a look at this page to see what happens when you try to communicate with a vandal. Also, take a look at this user - he/she was uploading attack images and recreating a deleted article repeatedly. All it took was one friendly message to get it to stop! Anyway, sometimes it's having a gentle but firm stance on things that makes it fun around here. Food for thought! :-) --HappyCamper 04:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slow morning (4am and waiting for a server to finish doing its funky thing before I can go home and eat and sleep - I hate computers!). How to I get a nifty revert-O-matic, though? This takes way too much energy! :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your dedication again, we could request a addition to the spam blacklist, if and only if this continues. Dominick ^(TALK) 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back with more links. In the meantime, there's something called popups. I think Lupin started that - there's a "godmode lite" somewhere which gives you a simulated rollback - not quite as quick as the ones admins use, but still pretty good I hear. Talk to Celestianpower for that...also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject User Scripts. These should help vastly improve your RC patrolling I think. --HappyCamper 11:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally use the godmode light script, recently having switched from popups. The popups are great, but I didn't need their power. In case you hadn't found it yet, you can install it by going to User:Just zis Guy, you know?/monobook.js and adding

document.write('<script src="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"></script>');

--bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Now added, let's see if it works :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back

I've returned from my Wikibreak, more or less alive despite how tired I feel. Having only skimmed the Wessely article, how do things look so far? Note -- One Click has re-issued their call to arms as of this morning and posted the full text of the fork. I'll be standing by monitoring things and making updates and changes as needed. --Vortex 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems OK so far. When I replied to the email form the woman at One Click she had the unmitigated gall to reply that any exchanges would be in the public domain. So I told her that in that case she should not have contacted me by mail, and banned the one click domain at my mail server. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? . - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

I've admired your work in AfD and was wondering if you would be interested in becoming an administrator? Please take a look through WP:GRFA and if you are so inclined, I'll be glad to nominate you. howch e ng {chat} 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support you if you accept. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto that. PJM 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy! If you want to be Admin you have my vote. My answer is posted on my talk page.-- Bonaparte talk 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined once, but I will think about it, thanks. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Guy. I want to let you know that I am now cabal mediator. I make a pretty good job there. I solved one case :) My first case, I'm so proud can you imagine? :) Wish you all the best! Bonaparte talk 17:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the masterly handling of Simon Wessely, despite the aggro, is enough to give Guy the mop. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced I have the ability to remain above the fray. Actually I am absolutely convinced I don't! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't let that stand in your way. Remember, admins are just like any other user but with additional tools. They aren't expected not to be human. :) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musilanguage

I'm not sure. It has a New Scientist link, but since I'm not a subscriber I'm not sure whether it's a book review or a real independant piece of media coverage. Is the person mentioned in that preview related to the book? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your name has been mentioned publicly

Hi. You might want to check this article: http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/ I am not sure if you are aware of this already or not, but it portrays you in a very negative light, and is being picked up by some news sources, blogs, forums etc. You may want to make a response to it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen it. If they choose to think that Mike Vandeman is more credible than me, that's their affair, really. There's nothing I can do which won't make it worse, I suspect. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You have a blog page dedicated practically just to you. To bad it's not all good things. Best wishes and may the holiday season prove to be a little nicer to everyone. --CylePat 14:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to let it get to me. And fail, much of the time :-( Have a good one, thanks, Pat, and no hard feelings I hope. I have a great idea: let's begin the New Year with a new start. And here's a Christmas project for you: flesh out the motorized bike category with articles! I think we still need articles on the Singer motor wheel, the Tanaka Bike Bug, electric bike conversion (about which you clearly know a lot), battery storage density and so on. You have the library resources, you have the enthusiasm. Why not have a go! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not a blog page, its a "news article", its just that that one happens to be the most recent. In a week, they will have a new "news article" and the one on Wesselly (which mentions Just zis Guy) will be moved to archives.

For the record, I have heard a lot about Wesselly, as he was cited during the controversy regarding Australian Football League superstar full forward Alastair Lynch, who was diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and was told that it was all in his head and he was lazy. His issue raised the Australian public's eye to the issue of what Chronic Fatigue Syndrome really was, as, prior to the incident with him, Wesselly's beliefs were widely regarded as true. He brought to public light about the reality that it is not just "in your mind". For 3 years he undertook significant therapy in relation to CFP, which was very well publicised and documented, and then returned to front level football, where he became the leading goalkicker and a star full forward. He still has CFS but has managed to treat it. Wesselly was cited as the reason for the misconception of CFS.

Therefore, the One Click Group are quite correct with what they say, and the Wesselly article in its current form is hopelessly POV. There are documented references about Wesselly's false claims, and he is very notable for this, and has had worldwide attention for his claims. Whilst this is very negative, and indeed anti-Wesselly, there is nothing wrong with citing negative statements about someone in an article, so long as they are presented neutrally. Many, many articles present negative statements, and this is the correct way to go about things. Indeed, pretending that he was not notable for giving people totally the wrong idea about CFS (i.e. "its all in your head") is negligent. CFS is not all in your head, something which has been proven quite definitively.

This is a similar kind of issue as schizophrenia, where a number of theories were at various points in time pushed as truth but later proven to be nonsense. At one stage, schizophrenia was believed to be multiple personalities disorder but nowadays MPD is believed to be make believe. These kinds of controversies are important to science, and documenting them in detail is important to the encyclopaedia.

That being said, and One Click Group being a notable support forum for CFS sufferers, it does not mean that Wesselly is all negative, and his positive achievements should be noted as well. However, I question the accuracy of "a small number of ex patients" citing his push that CFS is all in your head. World Heath Organisation does not count as a "small number of ex patients". So the article really needs some major POV attention, and is not currently neutral.

That being said, you should still state what you were trying to do somewhere. I am sure that your aims were to try to help things. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be incensitive or anything to your current issue. But I can sympathise with the above case. This is because, I've recently started the article called Gallery of motorized bicycle which is in the process for deletion. My "beef," on the issue is that removing information that relates to an article essentially creates a POV. (ie.:CCM (bicycle manufacture)) within the alleged "main article" motorized bicycle, is purelly a step toward denying information and creating a propagandic article (or a POV within the article.) We've had many a discussions in the past. Anyway... looking forward, and trying to wish a Merry Christmas (hence keeping this discussion light right now)... Perhaps for the motorized bicycle article we can do like what is on the telephone article and that may solve some problems? --CylePat 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Zordrac, thanks for stopping by. I need to get the original and my revised text together on my website to show what really happened: everyone is looking at this down the wrong end of the telescope. In the begininng I only looked at it because I saw an anonymous edit to an article which I thought was about one of the Methodist Wesleys. I read the text and was appalled by it, it was not just POV, it was defamatory. I set about trying to rephrase what they wrote, but they simply reverted it to their previous text verbatim, and attacked me as a Wessely apologist even though I had never even heard of the man before, and said so at the time. This has now been going on for over a month. I tried being diplomatic, so did William (see WP:TIGERS for his masterpiece). None of that worked. In the end I got seriously pissed off with them, because I am human and because I suffer from anxiety depression and because I sometimes have a hard day at work. As One Click have found out, I sometimes do lose my temper. And when I do, I have a fair command of invective. No doubt they are all little plaster saints.

The fork was created from external sources on 20 Novemner, it's been open to editing for a month during which time I have barely touched it. If it is overly gushing it's because I don't trust myself to judge what should be in there and what should not. I've dome some reading up (including the Lloyd report) but in the end my view of the anti-Wessely faction is heavily clouded by the appalling treatment One Click handed out to me right from the very beginning. If they had been constructive, working from the toned down version rtather than simply reverting to their attack, we would not be here now - and the article would be a good deal more sceptical!

I have every confidence in your good faith. Please do edit the article - take a scythe to it if you like. As long as it remains an article about Wessely and his work, rather than a hatchet job by those who very are in the grip of a deep and abiding hatred, I can't see any problems. But beware: Honey tried to engage with One Click and got the usual aggressive response. Don't get involved unless you are prepared to be boiled in oil the same way as I have been. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters links

Hi Guy. Can you let the "fisheaters" keep a couple links while the debate goes on, like perhaps one on the Traditionalist Catholic page, and maybe one on Catholicism? I think it would show good faith, and help towards resolving the issue. If they see you stand down from "delete everything" perhaps it will be easier to get them to stand down from "post to every page possible".--Srleffler 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse provided either it is done by a neutral third party or they take the time to convince me of the relevance. I've created sections on the Talk pages to discuss relevance. For the record I removed them because as anonymous edits re-inserting previously deleted content I assessed them as vandalism. Adding "Good link!" in the edit history does not really count as a realistic attempt to engage in dialogue :-) If you want to add the links I'll trust your judgment as to which articles they should go in and how they should be described. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on Srlefflers talk page. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me here, Guy. I am glad for anything that will resolve this and let things move forward. I will engage on the Talk Pages and add links as I go. (And thank you, Srleffler, for taking the time to get involved in this dispute. It is very important to traditional Catholics everywhere and I imagine they all thank you, too.) Malachias111 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's nothing that can't be solved by putitng ego on the back burner for a while, I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable?

I made these conditions. I am leaving them alone on traditional Catholicism and Catholic. Am I being reasonable?

Let me repeat what I said elsewhere:

All personal attack cease, no more screaming "liar".
All reverts cease.
Any inkling of coordination someplace else ceases.
If any anonymous user adds the link it will be reverted.

What do you think? Dominick ^(TALK) 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, if the links are added by third parties with no obvious axe to grind, I have no real problem. If anons start adding the links, or if they get added to more than a very small number of articles, then the spam radar will kick in for sure. My one caveat is that these are represented as the "traditional catholic" view. I have not enough information to judge whether that is as valid as, say, representing the Continuing Anglican Movement as "traditional anglicans" (which they are not, really). I will leave that to the article editors, and it's a separate issue from whether the links are included or not.

Read the rest of this talk page, though - you'll see that I may not be the best person to ask about how to deal with controversy :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He declined anyway. More linkspam on Christmas Epiphany and Dispensationalism for those keeping score at home, but, I may just be lying. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was added by Malachias111. See above. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see the confusion, Malachias111 is one of the admins on her forum from the fisheaters website, he is not a third party. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that three links is not excessive, but I will leave it to the editors on the individual articles I think. Do talk to Srleffler about this, I don't know enough about the histories and personalities to do more than janitorial work here. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Malachias counts as a "third party", although he has been more reasonable than some. I'm not sure if the concept of a few links got through, though.--Srleffler 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any more than three or four and I'm going to get the Revert-O-Tron to them. I want to know, in each case, precisely why the site should be linked: what authority does it have, what does it cover that is not covered properly in tyhe main article, and (crucially) is it just a POV fork in disguise. I suspect some are. What say we form a review cabal? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but keep a few obviously relevant links like, say, from Traditionalist Catholic and Catholicism. As I said elsewhere, it seems pretty clear that their site is useful enough to merit a few links from Wikipedia. I don't see POV in external links as a big problem. It's useful for an NPOV article on a contentious area to have links to sites that explain the views (POV and all) of the various sides. There is no need in general for an external link to be neutral, or authoritative, as long as it contributes useful information that may not be on the page. An outside POV site typically does this, and doesn't interfere with the Wiki article as long as it's clear whose POV the site represents.

I don't have time to be in a cabal, sorry.--Srleffler 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant for this one issue. Anyway, I removed the links from Christmas and Epiphany since I don't see the "traditional catholic" bit as relevant there. Other editors on Dispensationalism seem to think one of the two posted links is relevant, I'm cool with that, and I am happy to accept that it's relevant in traditional Catholicism and Catholic. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. I was wondering when I saw the edit comment. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is unacceptable, I appear to be agreeing with both sides. I demand a flame war immediately. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

hummm... ;\ Did you get any coal in you stocking? (LOL) Seriously though. I wish you good health and a healthy typing hands free from tendonitis or carpal tunel that way we may continue our antagonisingly stressfull yet fruitfull conversations. Cheers, and may all your dreams come trues (well... except for that deletion process on Gallery of motorized bicycle. b.t.w., good initiative on the hub motor I though it woul pop up red after I typed in my comments for the delete process) Anyway. Merry Christmas to you and the family! :) (b.t.w. does wiki give us an extra day for the deletion process since we had a holiday today?)(just kidding)(LOL) --CylePat 16:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RThanks Pat, and a merry Christmas to you too. My voice is tired from many hours of carol singing, the kids are upstairs playing on their new air hockey table, and my new locomotive is a disesel, so no coal required :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to mitigate "create new page" beartrap for new users

Another place to mention guidelines could be when presented with the template for creating a new page - e.g. when you get the dialogue presented as per Joe not Bloggs:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
Start the Joe not Bloggs article or put up a request for it. ADD "If you are intending to write about yourself, please read this guideline first." Peter Campbell 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how difficult this would be. Peter Campbell 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first to suggest this. I think the whole before you start page should be linked from the "create this article" page - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biffeche

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for much appreciated barnstar - I actually enjoyed the work as well, so doubly rewarded! Dlyons493 Talk 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

I have filed a Request for arbitration in the matter of the Min Zhu allegations, to determine a final outcome in this dispute, as I believe the edit-warring has gone on long enough. FCYTravis 05:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely reasonable. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy

Well, it depends really if the user has made any (non-vandal) edits other than to that article. If so, even if it's just a few, then I'd assume it's a legit user, and userfying would be a good thing. If not, and especially if the article contains linkspam, then I'd say this person is unlikely to be using WP for other reasons than self-advertising. Note that the former seems to occur far more often than the latter.

I was under the impression that the article had already gone through deletion (here), so the newbie had already been bitten, as it were. If you can bypass AFD entirely by userfying something, that would be preferable. Except in the uncommon case of linkspam. Of course this is just a rule of thumb. HTH! R adiant _>|< 10:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, it helps. I did right in userfying those pages (nauseating vanity that they were) even though the user had no other edits, because in the end we have to WP:AGF and the pages were not in themselves harmful, since user space is obviously not objective. Your point re linkspam is good, the ones being deleted look (in at least some cases) to be just that. I guess in future I will excise any evident spam at the time of userfying, and restrict the action to people, companies I will AfD in the usual way. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rpg page

I see you suggested me to create an rpg translation page. I do have quite a lot of info about other sites and groups as well, lots of links too. However, i know ill be missing stuff, as i only know about games for pc translations, for example, even though i know games have been translated unofficially for consoles, and even, lots of translations not a lot of people know, by people whose names are lost... Itd also be interesting to add other languages, for example, but i can only talk about spanish translations... In any case, ill be glad to lend a hand if you are really interested, and hope others may add to it. --Immort 14:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an RPG player, but it seems to me that there is scope for an article detailing how RPGs are translated, what the costituency is for these translated games, how long it takes, how many languages a popular RPG might be translated into, pitfalls in translating and so on. For example, are there instances where a phrase which can be reused in multiple places in English, cannot be reused in other languages and thus causes resource issues? It seems like an interesting topic. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, im not sure in how to do it, cos actually any pc game can be translated... you need a lot of people and a good programmer. I can certainly speak of my experience and about other groups and translations, but i guess this is what the wiki is about... people adding to your discussion. :)

But in all, i think a page of unofficial game translations (not just rpg, cos most of the games are translated the same way) could be okay. --Immortality 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to go for Translation (games). This is a separate activity after all, and has unique challenges. But do refer back to Transation where relevant. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LYes, that's exactly what I had in mind: start an article on translation and the translation "culture" and see what happens... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, i see there IS a "translation" page here! should i create a special one just for "game translation" or try to add there and hope it doesnt get lost in between all the rest? :) --Immortality 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkalai

I don't for one minute think that Mikkalai is a bad guy. I haven't had much dealings with Bonaparte. But I can see what kind of editor he is. I just feel that it would be better if another admin took over. Mikkalai has become involved. It happens! Nothing to be concerned about. But when an admin gets involved in the fight it's better he forgets he's an admin for the duration. There are loads of other admins. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it happens. As soon as you start doing anything in a disupte one side will accuse you of favouring the other - if you get really luck both sides accuse you of favouritism, and that's the best that can happen! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree :) I'm really happy that I am sorrounded by so many cool people. Just zis Guy, you know? is first on the list and he told me only good things. I try to put them in practice. I think I succeded it. Bonaparte talk 14:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement

This might get interesting.... :-D J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why the removal of the Fish Eaters links again? There are only a few and I carefully selected them. I don't understand this at all. Look at the links involved and please tell me what the problem is (I didn't add the rosary link, by the way). Malachias111 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no evidence that the linked site has any authority, and the articles don't require POV offcite links ot maintain balance. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "POV" about the articles. Check them out. They would please any mainstream Catholic (well, except Dominick). Malachias111 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The site is POV and has no obvious authority. The Alexa rank is off the "never heard of it" scale. You know the arguments, they were stated before. Links are in the subjects for which the site's POV is relevant - and I also delete other external links so it's not just this lot although the past evidence of systematic gross linkspamming does lead me to view them with slightly more scepticism than I otherwise might. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The site is a pan-traditionalist site. It covers "indult" Catholics and those who worship outside diocesan structures, and there are not only millions of such Catholics who worship in the traditional way, it is the historical practices of the Catholic Church. The site is not anywhere on Alexa because it just moved to a new domain (see the RfC for Dominick page). All of this is being talked out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#.22linkspam.22_request_for_clarification_of_policy We are talking about an entire library of Catholic sacramentals being linked to on an entry on sacramentals, a page on Lenten practices removed from the entry on Lent, etc. This is unduly harsh, in my opinion. Malachias111 23:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The site also has no evident authority (look at the Alexa rank, for example, foir both new and old domains); the authors do not state any credentials which lead one to believe that the site is authoritative. It also contains much which is POV and it has in the very recent past been liberally linkspammed; it appears to rely for much of its traffic (new and old domains) on Wikipedia. It's not as if there is any shortage of sites covering these topics, after all. I believe the current links are sufficient, and I am not convinced that the additional links (sometimes two to an article!) are justified in the context of those articles. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield pubs

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that, even though I nominated this article for deletion, I have decided to see if it is possible to save it. I have been through the article removing all of the POV and review-like elements and I have started to expand the rest. With a lot of cleanup I think that it could be saved (although I don't think that it is there yet). Anyway, please take another look at the article and see if my edits change your opinion on the article. Thanks, JeremyA 03:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. But the concept is a bit iffy per WP:NOT. Still, let's see. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanispamcruftisement

Why did you move it to the shorter title? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:47, Dec. 30, 2005

Cos someone said that spam and advertisement are functionally identical, and vanispamcruft is shorter. Switch the original and trhe redirect if you prefer, I rather like the longer term :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, can we have an edit war now? :-D - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back. Also I figure spam is just excessive use of external links, often to different parts of the same site, and the actual advertising component is where they say how good their product or service is, using buzz-phrases like "streamline", "leverage", etc. This could be added to the page, actually. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:54, Dec. 30, 2005

Absolutely. We need to be the authority on vanispamcruftisement :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You Guys are crazy... J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 15:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters

For my take on the background see User:Just zis Guy, you know?/Fisheaters

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Malachias111

He's seriously over-reacting, and violated the 3RR on Rosary. Is there action to take on this? JG of Borg 15:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Malachias will listen to me, I suggest that you leave a message endorsing KHM03's message on User talk:Malachias111 in the first instance. I think he's lost his rag a bit and will be OK once calmed down, but this does nothing to increase my confidence in his judgment re the disputed site. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I took down links that had Alexa ratings in the millions? Because I took down ones that had Wikipedia as their first referrer? Those are the reasons why the Fish Eater site links are being taken down. All of this information was included in the RfC Dominick, but was ignored. How else not to allow it to go ignored but "childish tactics"? What am I supposed to do? Talking and asking questions doesn't seem to work. Going over to the Fish Eaters forum and trying to put in a good word for Wiki as you requested doesn't seem to work. A FEW links were added and they are all taken down, all for reasons that only apply to the Fish Eaters website. There is no good explanation for that. Malachias111 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, because youappear to be edit-warring and possibly trying to make a point. Whether or not you actually are. If you'd like to list the links you removed with the reasons, I suspect that those of us who actively oppose linkspam will be supportive. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I the one considered to be "edit-warring" when I put up a link, someone takes it down, I put it up, and they take it down again? Who's the "warrior" in such a situation? I put up a very few links on a few select pages. I don't see the problem. Malachias111 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because you also take down links that are more relevant, causing others to have to revert that vandalism as well. See my suggestion on the RFC. JG of Borg 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Malachias appears to be edit warring and violating WP:POINT, whether or not he is. There are plenty of people involved now, plenty of disinterested third parties with real edit histories - i.e. not puppets. Malachias, you need to trust the process. The more you stir the pot the less weight will be assigned to your opinion, in my experience. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I took down the links that are being deemed "more relevant" (even though they are not; a simple comparison of the KofC Rosary page with the Fish Eaters one clearly shows which is the better page) I didn't re-add the Fish Eaters link. I took down links using the same criteria used in judging the Fish Eaters links (Alexa traffic, Wikipedia referrals) -- even though the Fish Eaters site just moved to its own domain a few weeks ago. The old domain statistics which were posted in the RfC Dominick shows what the deal is, but noone seems to want to look. The offer from U2BA to give her passwords to an admin to look at the statistics were ignored.

Look, U2BA DID add a bunch of links, obviously "too many" by Wiki standards (which seem to be more than a handful unless you're the Catholic Encyclopedia, catholic.com, ewtn.com, or americancatholic.org). She did not know she was breaking any rules, which is obvious because she brought up an RfC against Dominick for taking down the links, revealing a slew of links that had been, in her opinion, vandalized. Then she gets labelled a "linkspammer" and every admin in town goes after the site and takes down ALL links. She tries to get clarification like I'm trying to do now. I asked for clarification of policy in many different ways, got nothing specific, said I would add a FEW links and hope things work out. They all got deleted--and they all got deleted for reasons that don't work against other websites that are deemed "more relevant" even though they contain FAR less worthy and interesting information. "Relevant"? To who? That's a serious judgement call, totally POV. And you can't expect a trad site to have the Alexa rankings and money that catholic.com (a private commercial enterprise that has as much authority as Fish Eaters) has.

Here's the thing: even if those "acceptable sites" did contain a lot of worthy and interesting information for mainstream Catholics (and they do), they aren't relevant for traditional Catholics (and there are millions of us who follow the 1962 calendar and Missal, or older ones--inside and outside diocesan structures). On pages of interest to "Catholics," the traditional Catholic practices should be linked to just like the ones are for the people who use the 1970 calendar. That site is a pan-traditionalist site that welcomes ALL traditional Catholics, whether they're indult Catholics, SSPXers, sedes, or whatever. Its being blackballed is unfair and a blow to Wikipedia's goal of being a total resource of relevant information.

By the way, I looked up StThomasMore at the Fish Eater forum. He's no "shill"; he's a 12 year old kid, born in 1993 -- and there is not a thing at that forum that tells him to go do anything here. Malachias111 18:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating three issues.

First, the fisheaters site. I am sceptical of any links to that site by now, for the reasons stated at User:Just zis Guy, you know?/Fisheaters and elsewhere. There are two active RfCs, I think we should all wait for the outcome of those before adding any of the links back at all, and to my mind any links to that site, with its off-the-scale Alexa rank, hardly any sites linking in off Wikipedia and no evident claim to authority, are looking hard to justify.

Second, the removal or addition of other links, which has the appearance of edit warring or WP:POINT. Whether it is either is largely irrelevant. All these articles have active editor communities, I see no problem with pruning links (anything but!) however there is an ongoing dispute between you and other editors, so it may be more prudent to leave comments on the Talk page saying what you think should be removed and why, and wait for at least some discussion before boldly hacking away at the vanispamcruft.

Third, the issue of factional religious differences. It's not that I don't understand the point you're trying to make re "traditionalist" Catholics, we have the same issues in the Anglican communion (joke: a Welshman is rescued from a desert island. He gives his rescuers a tour of the island, his hut and the two chapels he has built. "But why two chapels?" asks the Captain. "This is the one I go to", replies the Welshman, "and that's the one I don't go to"). We have congregations in my own Diocese who refuse to use anything other than the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. But for the most part, to discuss these differences outside of the context of articles specifically addressing the different opinions (as in Traditional Catholicism or Continuing Anglican Movement will tend to confuse rather than enlighten a general readership. Better to allude to the differences and link to the Wikipedia article which discusses them in detail. We don't allow POV forks within Wikipedia, and what you are arguing for appears to be no different: a link to a partisan presentation which does not reflect the majority view, or the view discussed in the article. Imagine how you would feel if a fundamentalist Baptist insisted on adding a link to Transubstantiation, to a page stating that in the opinion of hios Church the doctrine was heretical.

That said, and to return to point 1, if there is a genuinely substantial traditionalist Catholic movement, as you say, which differs on as many issues as you appear to argue, then I have extreme difficulty believing that a site with an Alexa rank in the hundred thousands, a forum of only 300 members and with Wikipedia accounting for fully one third of all inbound links, is genuinely the most authoritative resource for it. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First to clarify a point: the sites linking in and the Alexa ratings you are looking at do not accurately reflect the Fish Eaters website because the site just moved from kensmen.com/catholic/ to fisheaters.com. The relevant ranking isn't 400,00 something, it's 200,807 [1] (the site, acc. to Alexa, is 4 weeks old, and it is being measured over Christmas). The site's highs meet the "relevant sites'" lows (for ex., see [2] and [3] and [4]. Those sites are americancatholic.org, Crisis Magazine, and Envoy Magazine -- all sites that Dominick, for ex., would consider "national" and "not a monograph" and all that stuff. So point 1 and the return to point 1 are moot here.

I will interleave comments here, against usual Wiki practice, for clarity.

If you read the comments at User:Just zis Guy, you know?/Fisheaters you will see that I also looked at the old domain name. In detail. The assessment is, as far as I can make it given just how badly the linkspammers annoyed me, accurate and fair. Note that the transfer of traffic from the domains is explicitly discussed, and I have used identical tests on both new and old domains. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Wikipedia is a (if not the) principal promotional medium for fisheaters.com. Since much of the traffic appears to originate with Wikipedia, and the argument is not in the main about traffic but about apparent authority (i.e. some random person with a fringe minority view versus. the Catholic Encyclopaedia) the comparison is mott, but in any case you will see elsewhere that I am going through all those articles suggesting wholesale reductions in the numbers of external links per my understanding of WP:EL (to say nothing of WP:ISNOT)..

Second: I read the POV Fork link you provided, but don't understand it or what it has to do with a few links to the Fish Eaters site. I am not being a wisenheimer or anything; I really don't get it. The Rosary is prayed by mainstream Catholics, Anglicans, and also by traditional Catholics. I don't see why all of their views can't be represented on a page on the Rosary. Same with Advent, and Lent and all the other stuff.

They are. In the article. That's the point. Fringe viewpoints, or dozens of "me-too" sites, should not be linked. Excise as many as you like, I'll be happy, but note the suspicions above and for preference discuss the removal with the editor communities on the articles first.

Diocesan bishops and the local branch of the Fraternity of Rapping Priests aren't going to link to a traditional Catholic website. It will have lower rankings than EWTN and catholic.com and all the other sites that have money behind them. That's just the way it is (for now anyway). And as to authority, it's a pan-traditionalist site, and the traditionalists are, by their nature, suffering a crisis of authority. The priestly fraternities are at odds with each other, but the site is for lay Catholics and takes no sides in the "where to worship?" debate, and the traditionalist movement is big and growing all the time. On top of that, the information is good for even historical purposes.

You cite millions of traditionalist Catholics. There are fewer than 300 external linnks to fisheaters (on new and old domains combined) excluding Wikipedia. Catholic.org has over 380,000. My own private site, for which I make no claims whatsoever and which is hosted from a homebrewed PC in my under-stairs cupboard and hooked up to my ADSL line, scores over four and a half thousand links according to a quick check, and I have never actively solicited links, that's just word-of-mouth. It doesn't look as if fisheaters is widely discussed or widely linked. And Wikipedia is not the way to fix that (see WP:ISNOT).

I like your joke (reminds me of the one about the southern Baptists!), but this site, as said, is pan-traditionalist and includes all trads (those who hold the Faith as it had always been preached and who worship in the ways all Catholics did before the changes after the Council), so while Missal-picking and where to worship are discussed at the forum (among people with totally different views), no viewpoint is pushed at the site itself aside from the thing that binds all trads together -- that the traditional Mass and sacraments have to be preserved.

As to the Baptist and a link refuting transubstantiation, I expect opposing views at Wiki as long as they're labelled correctly. I thought that is what this encyclopedia was all about -- to be one where, when it comes to controversial things, controversial opinions are expressed and rebutted and presented as viewpoints rather than "the way it is." At the traditionalist Catholic entry there are sites listed that oppose tradition, for ex., and I've never tried to remove any of them. I didn't expect Wiki to be the Curia's pipeline to the world. I expected it to be balanced in presenting different groups' ways of doing and seeing things. That's why all of this is bumming me out --esp. because it is traditional Catholics (and Orthodox) who came up with the Rosary, Advent, Lent, Christmas, Easter, and everything else Catholic that has an entry.

The point is that if there is a significant dissenting view it should be discussed or Wikilinked fomr the article. If there is a fringe dissenting view it should be discussed very briefly in the article. In either case the idea is to accumulate the information here, not divert readers away to other sites. Especially when there is no indication that those sites are widely regarded as authoritative.

Also, I hope noone holds StThomasMore against Fish Eaters. I looked him up and he's just a kid (12 years old), and nothing at that site or forum directs anyone to do anything to any specific articles (though it does encourage trads to become editors). Malachias111 20:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have ignored that whole issue, it's a distraction. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

Discussion re User talk:Just zis Guy, you know?/Linkspam

Merry Christmas!!

Ooh lovely! Just what I wanted :-) Thanks, Santa! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]