User talk:JzG/Archive 8

Melodrama

User talk:Jason Gastrich. Reading between the lines it sounds like he is sending an army of sock and meat puppets to protect his hijacked pages. As well as that melodramatic outburst he is still thinking this wikipedia affair as being about atheists and unbelievers vs little innocent old him. The poor soul, it's tough being the only sane, loving person in the world. Sigh. David D. (Talk) 07:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So no change there, then :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, you might want to check the Kent Hovind page. As soon as the protection was removed, POV edits by anonymous IP users occurred again. - WarriorScribe 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have it on the radar. It's sporadic at present, which we can keep a lid on. I will reapply semi-protection if it escalates again, but there is pretty strong resistance to semi-protection for occasional vandalism. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morey and LBU

Robert Morey was deleted a while back (in the mist of the LBU AfDs) and now someone wrote a new page. Isn't this against Wikipedia rules? Arbustoo 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, user blocked, notice left at WP:AN. Thanks for the heads-up. By a strange coincidence the new biog did not include any of the controversy details from the old one - who would have thoguht it? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that was Jason though. Since you are able to speedy things, check out the nomination for Prays and Forty-nine character virtues. Arbustoo 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets of Gastrich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chuck_Hastings and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Baptist College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbustoo (talk • contribs)

I've warned him that unless he explains how he came to know Gastrich within a day of arriving and why he decided to take his side in the reversion of his talk page, he'll probably be indef-blocked as another sockpuppet. --Malthusian (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First talk-page edit over at Arbustoo's place is classic Gastrich. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings' page says he's from Australia... so if his IP is similiar to what Gastrich has been known to post under... Arbustoo 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay a bet that Mr Hastings has a 207 IP and the wikipedian in Sydney is a bluff. How many new user know about categories. On the other hand gastrich had a love affair with them. Smoke and mirrors. i was just being polite when I accused the guy of being a meatpuppet. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, isn't this an indefinite block?Arbustoo 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If edit history or checkuser justifies it, yes. As yet it does not (no significant Gastrich-pattern edits to article space, few Gastrich-pattern comments in User talk space). If it is Gastrich I think we can rely on conclusive evidence coming rapidly (or abandonment of the account, as with most of his socks once they are discovered). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"absence of Clue"

I would most vehemently challenge you on this point, my friend. The only mistake anyone in the project made was bringing it out prematurely. Other than that, I'd beg you find one single edit of anyone involved that was clueless/wrong. The way such projects are built is often from fumbling beginnings.

Please don't take this note the wrong way; this is not written in anger. I know you were saying this casually, and I'm certainly not saying it's wrong. I just need this expressed. My kind regards. --DanielCD 21:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Here's the comment in full:

We're getting a bit tired of the accusations of violating code, specifically WP:POINT. If you don't believe my word, I request to be either be brought up on charges or that people stop saying that. And I've admitted to being not only not smart enough to wait until the dust had settled but of not being smart enough to even know that there was (much) dust. What can I say? I get it, and in future I promise to try to spend more time paying attention to Wikipedia internal politics and less time on researching scholarly content, OK? Herostratus 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My acceptance of your good faith was implicit (OK, perhaps it wasn't: I should have used since instead of if, sorry). As to the politics, well, yes, I see your point - I try not to get into the politicking, I thought it was kind of hard to miss on this one with so many of the user pages on my watch list lighting up, but of course that is distorted by my perspective as an admin and as a frequenter of AFD, DRV and of course AN/I so naturally it seemed plain to me and I can quite see how the world at large could easily remain in blissful ignorance of the whole thing (and be better off as a result, truth be known). So it wasn't personal. In fact, I think I have tidily demonstrated that absence of Clue is not restricted to the participants of this Wikiproject :-)

so, Herostratus said that it was created in ignorance of the ongoing debate, and I was saying that cluelessness was not only on his part and I was accusing myself of lacking clue here, not anyone else.... oh forget it, the hole I'm standing in is quite deep enough already. Go and look at Talk:Herostratus. You can have an apology too, if you want. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God I'm an idiot lately. --DanielCD 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DanielCD and Just zis Guy, you know? : ) In a clumsy (and self-serving) attempt to distract DanielCD from over-musing about the PP, could both of you look at my comments on Graham Rix talk. Someone is trying to minimize my pov by calling me a moralizer. At least that's my take on the situation. What do you think of my response? I'm not incline to let comments like Calgacus's pass unanswered. Once I'm cast as an pov-pusher, my input will not be taken seriously. FloNight 22:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God yes, anything besides this... --DanielCD 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you run out of distractions there, Human still needs your help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rix

Just zis Guy, you know?, thanks for adding a comment to Rix. Voting in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Proposed decision is slow but steady now. Taking a turn toward my choice, ban for Larvatus so article can be written. I was afraid that other editors were going to get wacked too. Looks like the tide is turning away from that outcome, thank goodness. Thanks again for giving Rix your attention. regards, --FloNight 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't want Felonious whacked over this, I am entirely convinced that we were all doing what we thought best for the project, no matter that we came to different conclusions. Plus, I get sucked in far too easily myself, so if Felonious is going to get his knuckles rapped it's only a matter of time before I'm in the same spot. It's easy to be wise after the event. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Vincent

Just curious... what's the problem with linking to the CMT page on Rhonda Vincent? Jim, K7JEB 02:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I notice you've been removing masses of links to cmt.com. Why are you doing this? This is a major country music media source. It has mini-bios of artists. In a number of cases, it serves as a signficant independent source of information for the article. As with imdb, just because something is heavily linked-to, doesn't mean its link spam. The link is not only useful to readers, but also fact checkers, who may not be familiar with an artist, and may wish to verify something. --Rob 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it back to Gretchen Wilson. There were previously only three external links from that page. One to the official site of the singer, one to a fan site, and the CMT link. The CMT link, which includes a bio, is the only independent external source linked to in the article. So, I can't understand how it could be removed. We can't have articles with no independent sources (the fact it was in the "External links" instead of "References" is a just a minor labelling issue, as its still a reference). --Rob 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CMT is the MTV for country music we get it up here in Canada. I think they should stay. Most likely it was a misunderstanding (you are british correct?) and most likely have never heard of it. Mike _{(T C)}

04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP went through adding CMT links to a vast number of articles (over 100 I think), in each case disguised as "foo artist Music Videos". This included re-inserting links which had previously been removed from a number of them, usually with CMT in the previous link title. Not all of them were country artists, and even if they were I still read that as linkspamming (any mass inserion of links to a site lights up the old spam radar, y'know). I think if we link anywhere it should be to allmusic, since thaty is specifically listed in the criteria for inclusion at WP:NMG. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

09:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to allmusic is fine. But, WP:CITE requires us to use *multiple* reliable mainstream, respected sources. CMT is a national, reputable, widely known source (with American country music), which employs professional journalists. Allmusic doesn't always have a biography for every artist, and if it does, it may be POV (which is ok, but that's why we need balance). I think the problem here is your applying the "external link" rules, which favor "less", but I'm applying the "citation/referencing/verifiability" rules, which favor "more" (if reliable). IMO, WP:V trumps everything. As long as a source is important in verifying information in article, it should not be removed. So, the links should be re-added, though the display text needs to be made proper. Having lots of CMT links will be no more of a "spam" problem than that which we already have for imdb (and CMT is a more reliable source than imdb, for those it covers). --Rob 10:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing it, I'm just telling you why I did what I did. Anon IPs adding links to hundreds of articles is always going to attract spam watchers like me. And if the site is so very notable it invites the question of why it was not already cited on most of those articles and why it had apparently been previously removed from some. Links added by known and trusted users is somewhat different, and if there is consensus within a WikiProject to add links to a given site that makes a difference again. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Notable Pipe Organs

I couldn't help but notice your removal of the Salt Lake Tabernacle pipe organ - attributing the removal to LDSCruft. However, is it not the most famous pipe organ in the world? The one pipe organ that has been seen more than any other worldwide? To repeat what you removed...

[it] has been heard over the Music and the Spoken Word weekly radio broadcast since July 15, 1929 (it is the oldest continuous nationwide network broadcast in the United States of America). The show has been televised since the early 1960s and is currently broadcast worldwide through some 1,500 radio, television, and cable stations.

I would really like to see that pipe organ put back in the article. I don't see grounds for it's removal. If there is one notable pipe organ in the world, that is it. I think that removing it is more of a POV issue than leaving it there. Bhludzin 05:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous organ in the world? I would say certainly not. The Albert Hall organ, the Wanamaker, the Arp Schnitger Orgel at Neuenfelde - these are famous. I am something of an organ buff and have not heard more than a few mentions of the Salt Lake organ. Just because it provides accompaniment for a well-known broadcast does not make it a famous organ, per se; notable, yes, but pre-eminent? Probably not, by my reading. Nothing wrong with having it in a list of notable pipe organs, though, it would certainly pass muster there. Feel free to start that list :-)

The organ of Kings College Cambridge may well be the most widely heard in the world, since Carols from Kings is broadcast worldwide including on the BBC World Service, which according to my information is the most listened-to radio service of all. But it's not especially notable as an organ. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISIHAC wind-up line

I meant that the quotes make it clear that the phrase is a spoken part of the show and not written by the article's contributor. Therefore there was no need to explain what it was. I would argue that where it is heard within the programme is too much information for what is supposed to be a concise opening paragraph. Sorry I didn't explain it properly! Chris 42 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "too much information" when the topic is this important :o) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Gastrich

As you are no doubt aware, Jason Gastrich violated the terms of his RFC by editing with another sockpuppet. I posted this violation to his RFC. What happens now? Isn't there supposed to be some sort of long block imposed on his main account? --Cyde Weys 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but it was probably the only good edit I have ever seen from him, it was even referenced, even if it was only a honorery proclimation. Mike _{(T C)}

18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I have an email from "Hooba" insisting it is not a sock, but with an email address at wiki4christ.com - since that domain is currently 404 and I don't recall seeing any "get an address" links, I think I might have been assuming more good faith than was deserved when I believed this! Arbcom is the next step. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

19:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he email address is wiki4christ he is either a sockpuppet or meat puppet, too bad checkuser requests are basically a waste of time because of the backlog, but I am willing to bet it is Gastrich. Mike _{(T C)}

19:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the domain no longer returns an MX record at all, it can only really be Gastrich or one of his immediate associates. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

19:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be, most likely its a sockpuppet account. Maybe take this to AN and see what other admins say? Mike _{(T C)}

19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't be bothered, he's wasted far too much of everybody's time already. I know it's bad, but Felonious and some others have agreed so in the end I think it was me who was out of line in believing the protestation of innocence. We can WP:AGF all we like, but in the end we're not required to ignore the blindingly obvious. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich now started, please pile in. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I now think of Jason as one of those rare users that can be banned simply because the Wikipedia community is fed up with them for wasting too much time that could have been spent so much better. Even if that were not the case, I have an argument I personally see as definitive: Jason continues employing tactics not allowed on Wikipedia. The Bible (his stated moral code) only justifies wholesale violation of local rules in order to thwart the enemy in a war. So to him this is a war of Christians against Wikipedia consensus (point made earlier based on "Glorify Christ"—I'm basing it on the bulk of scholarly work in this regard). Wars do not build encyclopedias. Wars are described in encyclopedias though, so maybe Jason will end up starring in a new article after all. Sorry, I'm lecturing again. See you at the RfA. AvB ÷ talk 11:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People might want to keep The Skeptic's Annotated Bible on their watchlist for puppets. The IPs User:24.205.87.206 and User:24.205.87.60 are marked as Gastrich puppets and the current trouble IP deleting and making changes is User 24.75.30.114 Arbustoo 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taints alot

I reverted your rever to the taint article. The reason I made these changes is that at some point some person had added each of these terms and rather than continue te revert them I thought it might be better to just add them into the article and be done with it. It also will keep any person from writing an article about those terms. Anyway if you want to revert it again okay I just thought I would explain it to you. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled them and got between zero and a couple of hundred, so they are to my eyes either neologisms or protologisms. On balance i think I will remove them again, although I now understand the apparent disjoint between the proper-editor-with-a-history and the crufty content, so thanks for the explanation. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- That is fine with me. I have no desire to get in an edit war over that article. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich sock boilerplate

So why the abandonment of the original pic from the traditional Gastrich sock boilerplate? FeloniousMonk 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, I think someone else didn't put it in for proven socks so I didn't either. To be honest I'm not sure it's appropriate, on reflection it's only pouring petrol on the flames; adding it during the active part of the sock war was just throwing bait for the troll so not quite the same thing, now it's time to pause and reflect I think. We're not supposed to be a lynch mob, although we're not supposed to be devoid of a sense of humour either. I'll leave it to your discretion whether it should be reinserted. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it looks kind of creepy the way the picture stares out at you. I find it more tolerable without. David D. (Talk) 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I enjoyed the irony of it, but thinking about it, I'm coming around to see JzG's point. I'll rv my addition of it to hooba. FeloniousMonk 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the teeth that get me. You need shades to visit his user page.

So, shall I start the RfA rolling then? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least he still has them. In some parts of this country that would preclude his serving in his chosen role.

RFA or RFAr? RFA... just go ahead and add me as an oppose when you file it. RFAr... might as well start it, as the recent sockpuppets prove he's benefitted not one whit from the RFC. FeloniousMonk 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA might become a bit of a pile on, possibly wait a few months so he can get more experience ;-) David D. (Talk) 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets nom him for RFA anyways, it'd be interesting to see how many support votes he gets, then we can block them all as sockpuppets! Mike _{(T C)}

03:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's time for RFAr. It should go by relatively quickly, seeing as how everyone pretty much already reached consensus on RFC. At least this is what I'm hoping. Gastrich is so damn ... predictable. Every time he does something stupid and gets called on it he waits a week and then tries again. I actually only checked Louisiana Baptist University earlier today because it was Friday again ... and what did I see? Another Gastrich sock editing. Color me unsurprised and unimpressed. --Cyde Weys 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the stupidity that made this a bearable exercise I think. I mean the sock sending an email from Gastrich's ministry's domain asking to be unblocked was too much. I think it's the genuinely wiley ones that become tedious. FeloniousMonk 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone see a Clue lying around? I seem to have mislaid one... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tag User:Chuck Hastings as a suspected sockpuppet? His only edits were to defend Gastrich and when some questions appeared on the Hastings talk he disappeared. He had plently of time (a few days)to respond. The edit and run after a a series of questions, is classic Jason Gastrich. Arbustoo 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I need some Sage Advice re RFAr and when to move to the main RFAr page. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Hastings is back making edits, but won't answer any questions about his identity. Imagine that. Arbustoo 07:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

I noticed you mentioned in a comment (on Ruby's talk page), that PROD lacked a way to keep track of articles for which the tag had been removed but the article had not been AfD'd. It has one now: Ta Da! JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich RFAr application

I notice you created the RFAr as a subpage. As far as I know, subpages are not created until such time as the case is accepted, and such pages are created by arbitrators (or now, by clerks). In addition, the material is not visiabel on the main RFAr page, so I don't think that the arbcomm has any way of being aware of the application. Am I missing something here? Guettarda 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was down to (a) cluelessness and (b) trying to get things together before jumping in. I have been reluctant to start this process for several reasons, but feel it has become inevitable. I think one or two of the Clerks might have the Power to make the teporary page go away :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wesseley

Thanks for the greeting on my talkpage. Though I feel this may lead to petrol bombs, I feel I should mention that I once found Prof Wesseley's phone in the IOP canteen. In trying to find out whose phone it was I accidentally phoned the BBC's Greece correspondent, who has the same name as a post-doc in Psychological Medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry. Apart from his view on CFS, he is a very funny host of the Maudsley Debates, something which deserve an article of its own 1.) when I can be arsed, 2.) when I believe someone will help me. --PaulWicks 02:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got Spam?

Campus Crusade for Christ if you ran out of spam, check out this. Arbustoo 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy processed meat products, Batman! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Medals

Thank you JzG for seeing my point about the deletion of the Medal count pages that user CyclePat started. That's exactly what I said...that all that information is freely available on the internet! --Jared 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vadalism

Template:Olympic_games_medal_count

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

This page is up for deletion. Please follow wiki policy rules. You have vandalized this page by removing the deletion tag. [1] --CyclePat 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. As I said on your Talk page, not only did you tag the wrong article, you tagged it for the wrong process. If you want me to help you fix it so it goes in the right process and you make a complete fool of yourself I'm quite happy to help, but I really thought you had more sense than that. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my comments to this issue on the deletion talk page. I know that I am supposed to add a delete to every article but really The easiest way to do it was to bring this entire issue up for discussion on afd. Now every article that does have a citation can be saved and those that don't will probably be, unfortunatelly, deleted. Sometimes the rules suck. But that's the rules. Perhaps it may be a good idea to move all of this over to wikisource. --CyclePat 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can be certain that every article in which that template is used does not cite sources, then the adding the uncited template to the years template is simply wrong. And I have to say that adding it to every individual article stands a strong chance of being interpreted as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Now, do you want me to fix the deletion request so it's in the right place, or do you want to drop it? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about; these pages shouldn't need proper citations because all of the information can be found on the internet. Most of these medals pages even have links to their official pages! So why should the pages be deleted? it makes no sense, especially when they are of such encyclopedic value! Please reconsider the deletion vote. --Jared 20:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is collateral damage from another fight altogether. It will be sorted out fairly shortly, don't worry. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is! Thanks for stepping in, too. I couldn't have done it by myself. Haha. Plus, you're an admin and you know wiki better! --Jared 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some values of better ;-) - I do know Pat quite well, though. He usually calms down after a while. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's good to know! --Jared 20:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really. This is too much. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and referenced the first 14 he listed. If you could help by referencing 10-15 of them I'd appreachate it. Just look at the page source of the ones i've done and its really easy, just have to change the year in the URL =).

Yep

It's typical Pat. He sees a new policy (for him) and uses it with no research at all. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Well I shouldn't even be talking. I'm not even an admin... I've only been editing for like 3 months but i know what I'm doing! --Jared 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an old saying: when your only tool is a hammer, every problem ends up looking like a nail. Pat extends that: now he has a hammer, a screwdriver and a spanner, he sees every problem as a screwboltnail^{[citation needed]}. And don't get me started on how he identifies the so-called problems... Fortunately he usually calms down after a while^{[citation needed]}. But he will never forget this^{[citation needed]} - heaven help you if you fail to cite a single fact in any single article on the Olympics in future^{[citation needed]} :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, really. Some helpless kid is going to get yelled at for not citing the 2020 olympics page someday. haha. --Jared 20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the example of original research he used. He said if I state 2+2=4 it is original reasearch. It is not, however the proof for 2+2=4 would be original research . Mike _{(T C)}

20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was good.... --Jared 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA! HA! Very funny guys! Thank you for trying to help me out JzG. The only reason I'm not crying right now, or complaining more then the little blurb I added on Woohookitty's talk page is because I had a gut feeling it wouldn't be deleted. I really didn't want them to be deleted either. But when you read wiki policy there are some issues that need solving with the list of articles... Somehow I knew this was going to unavoidably come back and bite me in the ass. Fortunatley, It's not something that I am passionate about, unlike the motorized bicycles. One of the reasons I nominating this article is because I have decided it is time for me to move on to other articles for a little while. I had to do it. You know... If it breaks the rules it breaks the rules. We've technically made a quick exception to the WP:DP rule. I call it the common sense rule! (Unless it already exists) No matter the case... In my eyes after looking at many lists, reading through a few of the related talk pages I quickly noticed that the some facts where mistaken, some where arguable and all where practically uncited. <on the music of spider-man> SO... watch out... here comes the Citation Man!!!<end of music> Humm... My wiki sense are tingling! As for the deletion discussion. I though there might have been at least one suggestion (asides from mine) to transwiki to wiki-source but... nope. Meuh! Whatcha want? I added to the Template article's discussion page that the article was nominated and speedy kept. Now... I'm going to see if I can find some more articles that need mopping up... Unless of course you think I should take some time to help out with the reference citations with this issue? --CyclePat 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Pat, but I'm afraid you are the author of your own misfortune here. If you'd taken the trouble to understand my original message you would have realised that this was not just predictable but inevitable. I will say this as unambiguosly as I can: do not go on a citation rampage. If you do, the result will almost certainly be an RfC and quie likely a block per WP:POINT. It won't be me doing either (you know I have cut you a lot of slack in the past because I like you) but I can be pretty confident that's what will happen. Before you even think about adding the uncited tag, you need to check the Talk, page history, linked articles (is it cited in links on other linked articles?), Google (is it common knowledge) etc. If you start flagging numerous articles as uncited without doing these things first you will draw a lot of fire on yourself. If you do all these things and still find that the article needs citation, then go ahead. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

emergency

you seem like an admin on here so i was wonderin if you could take a look at this very biased admin's history and talk page. his name is Jiang. thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freestyle.king (talk • contribs) 02:46, February 13, 2006 (UTC)

you will be banned for reference infringement

are you completely clueless? you can't leave my material up there and take out my references. it's one or the other bud.

Good luck finding an admin who will block me for reverting your WP:OWN violation. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you keep putting my name on this, bud, you'll be reported more than you care to know

get a life, go play in a park or something, go read some IBM papers from 10 years back

I read them ten years ago, thanks. Play in a park? Not a bad idea: one park local to me has a velodrome, and I could use a bit of training, since my elder son is now starting to be able to give me a run for my money. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance is needed, again

Hello : ) If you are around, could you give me a second opinion. Earlier today, while welcoming newbies, I came accross a new account user Wannabebritney that looked like a vandal. (The name seemed s/w suspect, too.) [2]. I reverted and left a vandalism warning. Checking back later, I saw that the article Princeton Review had an Afd tag added by this editor. I reverted that edit too. The site went down again so I couldn't leave a warning. Looking at the edits now it appears Wannabebritney was trying to delete the article through Afd. Wannabebritney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I left comments on Wannabebritney talk page. Apologizing for reverting the edits but expressing concern that a new user's second edit to WP was the deletion of an 18 month old stable article. What should I do now? Re-apply the Afd tag? Does that make sense when the article is not really a good canidate for deletion? What would you do? FloNight ^talk 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD process was correctly initiated (i.e. listed and the debate article created) then re-insert the tag and it will probably be a speedy keep on AfD. Otherwise, ask the user what they were up to :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

09:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second opinion. You were right on. The Afd was speedy keep already. Nobody bothered to put the Afd tag back on, I suppose because it was so obvious. FloNight ^talk

15:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sometimes we get it right after all :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich

If you need any help with the case, let me know. I don't think you've done an arbcom have you? I've done 4 and I'm a mentor on Neuro-linguistic programming. So. If you need advice or evidence gathering help, don't hesitate to ask. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything specific that you need? If you can give me a list of a few articles, I can find some diffs for you. Or whatever. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any collections of diffs to specifically support the sock/meatpuppetry, expanding on what's in the RfC, and adding to the Evidence would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

14:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From today: [3]. Arbustoo 08:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD

Hi there,

This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Daisey, where you recently voiced an opinion. User:Calton has raised some significant objections, and I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind considering the ensuing discussion and changing or confirming your choice with respect to the article Mike Daisey. Sincerely ENCEPHALON 07:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work by Calton. I've switched my "vote" accordingly. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

09:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge management article

Hi there. Going back through the reverts on the KM article, I found this set of references which I feel was NPOV good and contributed by Dmezei, which you reverted as it was all getting started. I think that was a mistake; even if some of the other stuff was good editing on your part, those references he added seem very strong on first examination. I agree that the original 5 or 6 refs to two of his own papers were not Neutral POV, but the longer list from his edit there was much much stronger.

I can't see a legit reason why those should have been nuked, so I tend to think that your reverting there rather than discussing and counterediting other parts was probably provocative of the eventual more aggressive argument. Putting those back in would probably be a good start to really fixing things. Georgewilliamherbert 10:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the AfD discussion you'll see that quite a lot of the original article was seen as being original research. The editor complaining about the removal of the citations, is the editor who added them and is the author of the cited sources, which is also somewhat problematic, especially since these appear to be references to his website not to his published peer-reviewed work. I have no problem referencing things, but what was being removed was not just the refs, it was quite a bit of the content (and more cleanup needs to be done to avoid the originally cited problems of original research). My major problem was that the article as submitted to AfD was Don Mezei's view of Knowledge Management, rather than knowledge management per se. As you see from the reaction at AfD, Mezei seems to think he owns the text.

Just to be unambiguous, I have no problem with Mezei being cited as a source for the article, but as submitted to AfD it was made to look as if he is the pre-eminent authority, and his subsequent statements make it clear that (referenced or not) it is his personal essay on knowledge management, referencing his chosen sources. The view presented states as fact that KM uses a certain terminology: this is also not necessarily the case. Nor are links to an editor's own website and archived discussion group postings usually considered reliable sources. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't go back and read the specific edit I am referring to. That set of references was the longer, much wider reference list which his own writings didn't appear in.

I agree that the short, six or seven reference list which was mostly his own work was not NPOV. The longer one you nuked, was a good thing.

Regardless of the rest of what Don Mezei is doing, which I am not going to defend, that particular revert of yours wss a mistake IMHO and deleted useful content. As such, it was ultimately bad for WP, and probably egged him on to get unreasonable about what has followed. Please go back and re-read the history and see what you did there, the whole contents of the article you reverted in that instance, and in particular the detailed references list which wasn't just to his own work. Georgewilliamherbert 18:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the entire KM article

was my writing, yes. But now, the introductory definition is now terrible. Like I said, if anyone can do a better job, I would be the first to congratulate them. I was the first to tell Denham Gray on brint.com that his analogy for KID was great. Why? Because I know how hard it is to write one. The KM article has reverted to becoming one of those 'no one knows' what it is kind of subjects.

I knew going in that there would be people upset about all my references. And that's exactly what happened. So now, you want to leave all the material I wrote up, but take out the references to my ideas.

I would really appreciate if you would just start the article over from scratch, this is almost too strange for me to witness. I've notified Knowledgeboard.com what is happening here, and to remove the link they set up for me to wiki entry on KM.

Novelties like wikipedia are good for simple or well established ideas, but when it comes to creative thought or new ideas, wikipedia simply doesn't work. That's why wikipedia will never rise above being an average source to gather information. This KM article was the test, and sorry, but wikipedia has failed.

Your statement above says that the AfD nominator was right, and that it was original research. Your previous comments also suggest that you did not read the GFDL licensing model under which you contribute. Whether it sucks now or not I would not like to say - but I can be pretty confident that the judgment of those on AfD who said it had problems before is more likely to be neutral than your judgment as author, because in the end nobody can be neutral about their own work. It seems that you created a breaching experiment, and got the result you expected. Congratulations on proving your point. But if it hadn't been me who started to edit the article, it would have been somoene else - that is the nature of a Wiki, and I'd be astonished if mine were the last edits since I am under no illusions as to my abilities as an editor. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the problem here

is that no one built upon the ideas I listed already there. Those were time tested ideas. Not spur of the moment ideas. Those ideas had gone through 4 years on brint.com, 2 years on knowledgeboard.com and countless discussions with other KM practioners.

It seems to me, and I predicted this, that wiki took offense to the fact I (as in one person, not some 'community') was putting up all these ideas, and using the best of the ones sourced from brint or Nonaka Takeuchi. I know Nonaka's book like a fine tooth comb. I know Jerry Porras and I've discussed KM with him in context to his book Built to Last. I've exchanged ideas on the meaning of quality with Robert Pirsig, who helped clarify some ideas in my unified theory. What I'm currently reading on the wiki KM introductory definition (the rest of the article is mostly mine, with a few really bad edits thrown in) are a bunch of seat-of-the-pants ideas about KM that are purely whimsical. I don't really care, but I don't want my ideas associated with those. Knowledgeboard set up a link to wiki specifically because I was editing the page, but that's going to be taken down now.

I have no interest in having my 'name' out there. It's already 'out there'. I was doing this as a service to wiki, that's all. I put my website up there so someone could source my references.

Seriously, I wish the wiki community all the best, just don't use my ideas. Use your own, but don't take mine and de-reference them and change them. Because then they don't make any sense. I'm trying to uphold wiki to a high standard here. That's the point. Isn't it obvious?

Seems to me that you are still labouring under a misconception. Any text added to a wiki by any editor is subject to editing by others, which may or may not include removal of any text, references, name-checks, weblinks or whatever. Unless you are asserting that your perspective on the subject is absolutely unique and cannot be separated from you yourself (in which case it would have no place here). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exactly

"Unless you are asserting that your perspective on the subject is absolutely unique and cannot be separated from you yourself (in which case it would have no place here)."

That's right, it has no place here. Now you're getting it. My perspective is unique, and of course, this notion of someone having a unique perspective is new to the annals of academic history.

That's what I've been saying all along, wikipedia will never rise above being an average site. It's a rehash of what's already out there. Never interested me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.51 (talk • contribs)

Obviously you don't understand the point of wikipedia. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. David D. (Talk) 16:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that Britannica is a rehash of what's already out there, yes. That's precisely what is meant by no original research, and by verifiability from reliable sources. But once something has been contributed, it is licensed per GFDL, and can be built up or pared down according to whatever individual editors think. It's not a bit like academic research. DavidD was about right :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

16:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This peeked my interest enough to follow the KM stuff a bit. I'm not going to delve in further but is there a difference between KM and management consultants? It seems like another buisness management trick of repackaging the same old stuff. Or am i being too cynical here? David D. (Talk) 19:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes David, there is a difference. KM is a process that incorporates the desire to expand your range of inquiry with the need to simplify your options or decisions. So this expand/contract dichotomy is rolled out within an organization by balancing technologies with human initiative. The two have to complement one another in some kind of way, so that goals are always kept tightly focussed. Because with present day technology like the internet, it's easy to spread your learning, communication, research etc really thin. That's the whole point of KM, in an nutshell. It has nothing to do with management consulting. It's a science. DM

Thanks for the reply. So is it regarded as a new field or will it become a branch of economics? Actually economics does not seem to fit this area. It is definitely in the managment area, but a science? Economics of management? David D. (Talk) 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KM is far more than a type of consultancy. It became a buzzword about five or ten years ago, but the underlying processes of knowledge management have existed since well before it was ever called that. It's not a science, though, not in the formal sense: more of a black art :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very new field. So new in fact, that km-forum.org (Bo Newman) was probably the first group that launched the modern discussion of km back in '96. KM is related to economics through the concept of intellectual capital (Karl Sveiby has done research into that area). It's a lot like black art, I'd liken it alchemy. But I think it's a science, and here's the equation:

KM = K + (I + D)

where I is to D as K is to (I + D)

There was an example I used with the alphabet and how data, info and knowledge (KID) can be derived from each other, and that's explained by the equation in some respects. There's a lot more to it, can't really get into it here. But the point being, we have to examine how we catagorize and communicate and manipulate ideas. The better we are at this kind of obscure understanding of 'meaning' itself, the economic boost this gives to our organization. I call it whole brain thinking. That's the end result.

Are you familiar with Tim FH Allen's work? He is a theoretical ecologist. His work sounds quite similar although i'm not sure he would label it as KM. His main thrust is "Narratives and Transdisciplines for a Post-Industrial World" David D. (Talk) 23:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Say I own a business that sells cardboard boxes. When I start managing my knowledge what percentage more cardboard boxes will I sell on average? :-) --Malthusian (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if they're pizza boxes or shoe boxes.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with his Tim Allen's work. But it sounds interesting. The main connections I've seen with knowledge, info & data are these - that knowledge is Taoism, information is Rationalism, and data is Empiricism. The way they relate to each other is as follows:

taoism is yang + yin

rationalism is yang

empiricism is yin

So in the east, we have a form of unity similar to Nonaka/Takeuchi who see knowledge comprised as tacit (yin) and explicit (yang). While in the west, we have taken this unified principle of taoism and divided it up into empiricism (yin) and rationalism (yang). So that's the background behind KM theory, on a large scale.

Therefore if KM = K + (I + D)

then KM = taoism + (rationalism + empiricism)

that's why I is to D as K is to (I + D)

that, I believe, on a large scale, is how we manage and communicate thoughts, ideas etc. That covers cultural bounds etc. We substitute words like knowledge, information and data as representations. These words represent the underlying differences in our approach to the world as we know it. Data see empiricism as an understanding of nature from the outside in. Rationalism believes we create our own reality, and taoism is a combination of both.

not trying to be sarcastic

but you seem a bit in over your head as an editor of KM. Before Brint changed their forum format it was the largest in the world, and Yogesh asked me be the editor for the forum, but I didn't have the time.

I'll be honest with you, I knew this whole KM wikipedia things was doomed to fail. Writing what KM actually is, when anyone can change it? heh heh

It proved useful in that I refined my KM definition because I knew there would be an audience, so it helped in that way. So in that way, I'm actually very happy about it.

Wikipedia needs to evolve. It's too stuck in the morass of the known.

Like I said before, you clearly have a very different view of what Wikipedia should be than the people who wrote the policies. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Fontaine

I was hoping you would take a look at User:Paulo Fontaine's recent contributions and consider blocking him, especially for this edit, this edit, this one.... (I'm going to you because you have some experience with him, according to his talk page.)

Btw, belated congrats on your admin-hood! I'd always assumed you were already an admin. Consider the count a retroactive, unofficial 103 "support" votes. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 16:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting

I was just told by an editor from wikipedia that 'wikipedia does not publish original ideas'. I kid you not. Please remove all references from Einstein, Galileo and Newton right away.

The policy is stated unambiguously at WP:NOR. No original research means that WP is not a publisher of first instance, or of original thought. Instead, we document what can be verified from reliably secondary sources. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

18:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy--walk away. A terrier has got hold of your pant leg. Shake him off, for your own good. rodii

The problem with removing Einstein, Galileo and Newton is they published their work, their work has been peer reviewed, and accepted. Thereofre NOT original work. Its not original ideas, rather unpublished original work!. Mike _{(T C)}

20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see

So my website, or Brint.com, or my papers, they conveniently don't qualify as secondary sources. How many ways can you spin this? In my opinion, you're all just bugged that one person could publish so much material. That must be the case, because you de-reference everything I put up. Nazipedia.

From what I can see, none of you really have a clue about KM. So much so in fact, that there wouldn't be an article if you removed everything I posted up there. There would be just that lame KM definition, one of the many attempts to define KM that go no where. So the only thing right now that's making the km entry even worthy of a visit is what I've written. heh heh. That must just bug you to no end.

The only reason I even took on writing it was because, if you read the history of the entry, everyone was really dissatisfied with it. It was called 'unencylopedic', a really poor piece for a worldwide site etc. So, where were you with all your 10 year old IBM papers. Were you too busy to edit the entry?

"Sit back and have a look at the article, folks. it is in very poor shape."

"092605/SL - Kff, Banno, I am new to Wikipedia. I saw the KM page and thought - wow, for a global encylopedia this is a bad represenation of KM."

So I completely re-write it, which takes almost a month, people really like it, but lo and behold, they are POV's! POV's!! Ahhhhh. Delete. Let's go back to the crap. No, wait, we'll take out all references to the writer, BUT KEEP HIS MATERIAL. And if he doesn't like it, we'll ban him. Nazipedia.

D, you desparately need to walk away from Wikipedia for a couple of days at this point; the substantiative discussions about content will wait safely for being resolved later, and if you keep flaming people like this, you're going to get yourself blocked and guarantee you have no say in how the articles end up (or any others). Just walk away for a little while, calm down, and center yourself until it's not a personalized issue for you. Georgewilliamherbert 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police state yet again

Could you help me with VinnyCee who seems bend on making my life miserable. Is once again vandalizing my talk page. Would appreciate your intervention. Thanks Nomen Nescio 18:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Starting a new page

On the Help:Starting a new page helppage, others have gotten rid of the advice against autobiography which you added in December (according to the "Notability (people)" talk page). Would this still be useful and appropriate to include, as it seems to me? Barno 00:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mwalcoff/Candidates and elections

Hello,

I would appreciate your feedback at User talk:Mwalcoff/Candidates and elections, my proposal to bring some order to the candidates situation. I plan to soon create sample articles to demonstrate what I mean on the page. Please let me know what you think on my talk page. Thanks -- Mwalcoff 05:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please don't open cases on your own; it really throws the clerks and arbitrators off, who have to then check every step of the process to make sure it's been completed. Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was trying to work it up before going to arb, but I was told that was wrong. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, do you want to handle the sock and meat-puppetry stuff? You're probably better at figuring that out and making a case than I am. I can handle the SP:CIVIL, NPA, NPOV etc., stuff. Let me know on this very same section on my talkpage. Let's stay in touch on this one. If you want, you can e-mail me too so we don't overload our user pages. Jim62sch 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

12:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I saw a comment of yours on the check user page thingie about suspicions "Uncle Davey" may be behind some of the socks. You're right to be suspicious. He's known for sock puppetry on Usenet. I've caught him at least once myself when he forgot to switch his quote back heading from Polish to English. He's British but lives and works in Poland (for a UK firm). I've noticed his socks tend to come out of UK IPs. Davey also has the curious habit of going on tears about sock puppets, accusing posters with abandon of being socks of somebody he's having a spat with. Makes you wonder about projection. Finally, the kicker is he subscribes to a curious, non-mainstream theological idea that *anything is justified in the "cause of the gospels." Torquemada would be proud. Fortunately, Davey is just an accountant. I lost all possible respect for the man when we had a squabble over the issue of morality. He crapped on the whole idea of morals with "they won't get you to heaven." Apparently, morals are for the little people. Mark K. Bilbo 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency? The guy at the top of your discussion page was my hero. NOT! I think e-mail is good for if we have long questions, or for where we're confused. We can always annotate (briefly) what the question was on our talk pages. Sound OK? Jim62sch 12:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

13:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent revert war at SAB included this [4]. Arbustoo 08:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged User:Wiki4Christ with a suspected sockpuppet notice which I believe to be pretty justified. He took it down, quelle surprise, without edit summary or attempt to defend the accusation (so far). Will leave it to you or other admins to decide whether it should be re-added. --Malthusian (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent

You said that the root of the problem is LBU. I'd include the SAB in the "root of the problem" since that is a place he constantly desires to Gastroturf. His crowning achievement, and the "dissertation" that "earned" him a degree from LBU was his "rebuttal" to the SAB. Harvestdancer 16:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the day started there are four new Gastrich puppets. An IP [5] the new Wiki4christ[6], User:JGChristian and Wiki4Christ [7]. Is this going to finally be enough to say good bye? Arbustoo 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An another User:JesusChristSaves and another User:FredTaylor... hit the Louisisna Baptist University article. Arbustoo 04:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all these Gastrich socks or meats within a few minutes. JesusChristSaves (talk · contribs), JGChristian (talk · contribs), FredTaylor (talk · contribs), Blair Richardson (talk · contribs), Wiki4christ (talk · contribs) and Wiki4Christ (talk · contribs). They were all active and defending each other at the same time. David D. (Talk) 04:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to RFArb. Those are either unusually unsubtle or deliberately designed to be spotted and blocked. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich isn't stubtle. Didn't he email you with a Wiki4Christ domain while using a sockpuppet? While making edits he adds his own websites to Wikipedia. Arbustoo 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's so subtle he made people (except those who knew the Usenet story) think that User:Usenetpostsdotcom was a sockpuppet when that one was only a meatpuppet. --Malthusian (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic's Annotated Bible: nPOV tag and suggested next step

It is clear that, once again, Gastrich and his sock and meat puppets are engaging in edit wars with other participants at Wikipedia. This is a fairly obvious means that he can and will use to "get back" at the site, the admins, and the editors, whom he thinks have wronged him (see the AfC and the arbitration pages). As a response, I added the nPOV tag last night, and given the events since, I recommend that the page be locked. While I have little doubt that Gastrich enjoys these rather juvenile games that tie up editor time, I also think that most of the others involved would rather be doing other things. - WarriorScribe 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Wiki4Christ is now blocked for 24h, and will be blocked again if he resurfaces, the article is probably safe enough for now. We'll see. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

15:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until the next sock shows up... [grin] - WarriorScribe 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kdbuffalo is inlikely to be a Gastrich meatpuppet. i hae come across him before and he is just another apologist pushing the same, tired old arguments. It's possible that Gastrich has recruited him based on his editing but more likely that Gastrich is just jumping into the fray. Unfortunately, now they have met, i would not be surprised to see some sort of alliance. David D. (Talk) 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, the SAB page is locked. Can you update the examples section as the consensus on the talk page reads? Arbustoo 08:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Miller (pundit)

I do not know exactly what you want me to merge. Although I know how to do straightforward moves and what to avoid doing, this is the first of these history fixups I am involved in. I thought the admin would do a temporary delete while the admin patched up the history. Please let me know how to proceed. Chris the speller 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you sounded as if you knew. Easy enough:

tag target for deletion
once deleted, move source to target
get admin to undelete history of target
tag redirect at old source for deletion, or simply start new content there.

I'll finish it off anyway. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my explanation at WP:SPLICE. It's still better than when you started with it, but this was a more complicated case than you imagined. Up to you whether to venture further. Thanks. Chris the speller 21:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I like that "the classic more complicated case" :-)

Ben Gatti

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_Violating_Probation_for_Disruptive_Editing, we have our 3 admins. If you could do the blocking and follow the instructions on AN, it'd be appreciated. The consensus seems to be for a week per his general probation. If you think it should be shorter, that's fine too. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. it's been taken care of. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AUES

Hello,

You said in the comment to me you moved the AUES page to my userspace. Where exactly is the article?

cheers,

Shenki 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said I could move it to your user space. Do you want me to? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

08:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Guy, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 11:17Z

HELP

Getting an IP user who despite our best efforts is not paying any attention and continually violating 3RR at Wayne Gretzky. Check the history. HELLLP! :P RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 22:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing for over 2 hours, so not too bad, but the stuff at WP:VIP is a bit concerning. I'm watching for now, but will post at WP:ANI. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

23:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I see Alf's keeping an eyeball on it too. Man, this all has to start after I get the thing featured, doesn't it? RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to wind up asking for a protect on the article at this rate; it's become an edit war and it's getting ridiculously out of hand. How do I go about this? RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gretzky Article

I think it's hilarious that you claim the contested statement was said previously in the article in "much more encyclopedic terms." I cited two encyclopedic sources (The Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta) on the article's talk page that use near identical wording. Forgive me if I defer to their editorial skills over yours.-66.254.232.219 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cited sources for the text already in the article. Your statement was reverted as redundant, not as uncited. Tis is made abundantly clear on the Talk page. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

00:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your advice

Hi I need your advice on something. I've been watching for a while the article about a CEO I know half personally. Hes famous because of hurricane katrina, however there is a bit of confusion because the company he owns is quasi associated with a kenyan company that buys up expired domain names. No laws get broken, but in his article a group/individual keeps reposting a section about him that 1) isn't true and isnt backed up by anything except their own websites 2) is slanderous 3) is IMO extremely POV. Wondering if you could take a look and advice me on what I can do (ie remove the section or whatnot). The article is Sigmund Solares. Mike _{(T C)} 02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Feather

Frank.Feather 11:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)I understand what you mean. But if you read the item you will find it purely factual statements. But if that is your policy I will get somebody else to submit it. In that event, can you set it up as a stub? Thank you. Frank Feather[reply]

Frank.Feather 11:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)I have resubmitted the article. Purely factual. Please read it again, and advise. All the facts jive with what is in the public domain. All the books are listed at Amazon. If you need further third-party sources in the Reference section, I can provide them. I am not on some ego trip here; that's not me. I just would like to be listed along with my peers in the futures research field. Thanks for your consideration. Frank Feather[reply]

I am very disappointed that you chose to re-create Frank Feather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yourself, before I'd even got through typing my reply to your message. Even Jimbo Wales can't edit his own article without attracting adverse comment. What you are doing looks terribly like vanity, and I strongly urge you to leave these edits to neutral third parties. If you are as influential as you say you are, others will do it. I note that you have changed the attribution of at least one phrase to yourself, and claimed to have originated Thinking Globally, Acting Locally. Terms like "international business futurist" are weasel words which simply don't conform to policy. Please stop writing about yourself and leave it to others. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

12:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank.Feather 13:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)I was offering you what I thought was a fair and verifiable version. I have no desire to impede on your edits. I was working on it at the same time as yourself. In any event, I respect your judgment and request that you now please delete my entire page. Thanks! Frank Feather[reply]

You can nominate it for deletion by adding {{prod|reason}} at the top of the article. I believe that you honestly did think it was fair and verifiable - and I also believe that the other editor who has disputed some of the facts is also adding what he believes to be fair and verifiable. Which is why we tend to discourage autobiography :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

13:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank.Feather 14:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Thank you! I have done so. I also deleted all but the first line. By the way, just so that you know, the guy from Sierra Club who you cited as having coined "TG,AL" -- that's the first I have ever heard of it coming from there. The closest prior version that I am aware of was "Act Local, Think Global" by Dubois. Certainly within the Futures Research community, it is generally agreed that I coined the phrase. It occurred in a brainstorming session for the theme of the conference. (The 6300 people in attendance from 54 countries took it and spread it into the vernacular.) Somebody mentioned Dubois's line and I said "That's it! But it's the wrong way round; and it needs to be more active." I then suggested Thinking and Acting and that became the theme of the conference and the book of papers for the conference. The only evidence for this rests in the ears/brains of those who were in attendance, plus the conference program (which I have a copy of, and could scan the cover as an image for the page; same for the book cover). As for my credentials in China, all I could offer is a Certificate of Appointment, in Chinese, with a Seal, provided by the Government (which again I could scan). But otherwise I don't know how it is possible to verify credentials of this nature. And, for sure, a person of ethics does not go around claiming something as a credential which is not true. I also think that words such as "international" ought to be valid. I could be a Canadian futurist (i.e., only known in Canada), for example. In fact, I do 95% of my work outside of Canada; indeed, the Canadian market is not big enough to rurvive as a futurist, LOL. Anyway, thank you for your time. Sorry to cause you aggravation and waste your time; I appreciate what you are doing at Wiki. That was not my intent. I was just trying to add a valid and fair entry. Thanks for being patient with my futile efforts. Cheers! Frank[reply]

I didn't cite it, it was FoE who gave that information. Whether it's verifiable or not I wouldn't like to say, but it's a credible claim and predates yours. It's credible because FoE have used the term ever since I can remember. It is the way of these things that they may often arrive simulotaneuously in more than one place - you have only to look at the feud between Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton to see how that can happen. But don't worry, this is all part of the service - I am trying not to make it too hard on you, and I'm sorry it has to be this way. If I did not think you were likely to be considered worthy of an article I'd simply have tagged the article for deletion myself (as I did with the similar case of Azamat Abdoullaev, it looks to me as if your published work establishes your reputation. I note you are contributing in other areas as well, and I hope you will continue to do so. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

14:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank.Feather 14:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Thanks! I had another question. In the "Books" which I listed, I later added more complete publishing information for each one. I did this in an attempt to help verify credentials. But those details seem to have gone. What is the correct protocol for that? Frank[reply]

There is a template for adding book details called something like ISBN, but I can't remember exactly how it's used. If you click around a couple of authors you should soon find an example you can copy, otherwise it'll probably be in WP:TPL somewhere (you'll see why I can't remember them all!) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

14:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Horn AfD

I don't know if you remember thislargely uneventful AfD. I came across it backtracking the contribs of an anon who kept making whitewashy edits to pages about high-profile conservatives. I had to laugh because I went to school with Ryan Horn. He's absolutely not notable enough to warrant his own article. I'm not leaving this message because anything needs to be done -- I think the AfD took the proper course of action -- but only because it's not every day you find someone you know in AfD (unless you constantly write articles about your friend), and you were marginally involved, and I had to tell somebody. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 14:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Small world, isn't it? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.49.241.33 is actively vandalizing pages

This guy's already hit about eight user pages and a couple articles. He's been blocked before, too (if not at this IP, elsewhere -- I recognize his style, esp. at mobile phone). Could you take him down? JDoorj a m Talk 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, another admin blocked him. Thanks anyway.... JDoorj a m Talk

We both got to it within a couple of minutes of each other :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osgood

User still making stupid edits [8], [9], [10], [11], claimed likely commercial image Image:Tomoconnor.jpg as own, removed Paulo Fontaine sock puppet notice [12], corrected Paulo Fontaine edit [13]. Arniep 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, playing silly buggers again. Blocked. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gordon Lawrence

Would you be able to delete the history from this article that you nominated. It seems to be copyvio, and it also attacks innocent third parties. We should only keep (depending on how the AFD goes) the version that discuss what's known about Lawrence himself (verifiably of course). Deleting history might discourage User:Williamo1, who keeps putting stuff back. --Rob 23:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBU part two

Similiar to what happened at the LBU page, watch Hyles-Anderson College. There are some POV forks, ect. Arbustoo 03:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the forks, please? Guy 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change of [14] puts everything on Jack Hyles Controversy separate from the content. So basically, criticism is removed and facts about an pizza parlour on campus is put in its place. Same goes for the bio article that you voted on earlier. Arbustoo 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer spoons over forks. The vandal just admitted on the talk page that he is a "board member of this college" and was blocked for making threats (among other things). The article was locked so could you add the normal "controversy and criticism" heading where needed? Thanks. Arbustoo 04:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that worked well for the anon-a one-month block! Guy 09:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And two sock puppets. Now the the Hyles page has been hit with uncomment deletes. Sheesh, does JG have a cousin that goes to this unaccredited school? Arbustoo 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone go to accredited schools anymore? Check out the page history at Breyer State University. Sheesh. Arbustoo 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now the anon. user over at the Jack Hyles person is claiming crazy stuff like he knows me, I'm part of a conspiracy, adminstrators are working against him, I'll wipe his comments clean, ect. Surely his indefinite ban is still in affect? Arbustoo 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected JG sockpuppet

I've just tagged User:Gastrich81965 after a repeat of Wiki4Christ's Abortion edit. 81965 is probably JG's birth month. AvB ÷ talk 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be an impersonator seeking to further discredit Gastrich. Either way I've given the account the bum's rush. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

11:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Dear Guy, I'm considering standing for adminship in the very near future. As an editor I have worked with, I would value your opinion greatly. Do you think I have sufficient tenure? Have I exhibited the necessary qualities? Do you think I would stand a reasonable chance of success? Your advice would be most welcome. --kingboyk 19:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. As Douglas Adams, put it, "anyone who wants to wield power should under no circumstances be allowed to" :-) I think it's always best if someone else nominates, but I will have a think about it and depending on what I think might even nominate you myself, you never know... Guy 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! It's nothing to do with power AFAIC, I'm mostly in the "no big deal" camp (although I'm well aware of wheel warring and where it can lead, and I wouldn't be imposing any long term blocks without very good reason and/or discussion with other admins). It's more a result of having to wait on occasion days to get a no-brainer speedy deletion put through (and finding 82 pages waiting to be processed for speedy), not being able to move pages when a redirect already exists at the target, spotting a blatant vandal in realtime and having to post to the noticeboard while s/he rampages their way through the site, and so on! I use Mediawiki at home so I'm sometimes surprised when I go to hit an admins only button and find it's not there ;-) --kingboyk 12:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Question

A quick question you might be able to answer. Is it possible thatUser:Onward ND and User:66.254.232.219(your recent block) are one in the same? The edit history arguements are similar. And the former has made an appearance into a disputed page and rv'd it twice after the anon IP was blocked(to 66's primary arguement). Just wondering...thanks and take careUser:Mr Pyles

If you don't see him for 24 hours you'll have a shrewd suspicion ;-) Guy 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will try to watch as best I can User:Mr Pyles

We're nearing 24 hours since you blocked 66.254.232.219 and as I guessed would happen...Onward ND has been quiet as well. A little back-tracking shows that when you blocked 66.254.232.219 on the 17th, Onward ND(normally a busy little wiki-beaver) was dormant on that day as well. I think I have found a smelly pair of socks!? I've never sniffed out any dirty laundry before. What's the wiki-procedure in the event of a 2 headed editor??? Mr Pyles 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds suggestive. Got to requests for checkuser and describe the problem, the nature and severity of the disruption, the two blocks and how the named account went quiet at the same time, and ask for a user check, which may or may not be granted. Guy 22:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And thanks for your help Mr Pyles 23:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Request

Dear JzG, please could you have a look at the Deletion review page regarding plazoo. You made up your mind but regarding some strange findings about "the war against blogrelated entries in wikipedia", i would like to ask you as an admin to mediate as i think you are pretty neutral to this issue, although you have an opposite meaning about the deletion. I hope you agree that at least some closer look to the AfD regarding the voters and their closeness to that "war" might be necessary... T.Kik.

Comments made. Guy 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hiwtory of Science poroject

I was going to retype that, but what the heck. (You think your typing is bad... I've been trying to work up my depression/ME into an excuse for mine – affects motor control, you know, ahem.) Anyway, are you at all interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science, you having some Robert Hooke reprints an' all? Just a thought from a passer by. JackyR 01:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting, I'll be over... Guy 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules

Can I ask for some advise? I am having a discussion on what can and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Several editors want to dismiss certain information claiming it is not supported or that it is biased. As I see it, in controversial issues there is always bias, but we must try and present all views so that readers can be informed on the existing views surrounding that subject. All I want to know is: can information be used from sources that are said to be POV? You do not have to agree with the disputed information, I only want to know if sourced material can be used, even if some do not want to include that information?

For more details you can look here. Thank you.-- Nomen Nescio 16:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yo

i noticed you removed my image at the top of my talk page titled jiang=shame. however the only reason i posted that image is because jiang posted a image on his talk page titled "taiwan=shame" which is a personal attack toward me. if you think my image is unhelpful, you should remove his image from his talk page as well. by the way, you shouldn't edit ppl's talk page. if you feel sum of the content is unhelpful, post a message and i will read it. --Freestyle.king 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be very wary of interpreting that as a personal attack, the picture was from a news story as far as I can gather. It does not name you, whereas your banner did name Jiang. I don't think either of them are conducive to calm, so it would be better if you both removed them, but yours undoubtedly was personal whereas his was not necessarily so. And yes I should edit people's talk pages, see WP:RPA. You do not own your user or talk pages. Guy 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not found

"Not found" means that no posts by the suspected sockpuppet were found using the range of ips which the user suspected of using sockpuppets was using. Obviously they could be using the sockpuppet account on a different ip. However maintaining a bunch of isp accounts is expensive and confusing even to them so things get far fetched when you see posts coming in from a lot of isps. Who would spend that much time and effort just to mess with us? Fred Bauder 13:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Guy 13:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual place names DRV

You think it's about time someone closed to DRV for that article? I seem to do most of the DRV closings these days, but if I do this one I'll be crucified (not that I'm not very tempted). Anyway the debates gone on for almost a week, and no one's adding anything to the dialogue. The process was already tainted when User:Docu spammed well over 20 users, telling them to vote to keep it (no such effort was made to keep it deleted). It's a mess. -R. fiend 17:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'm off to choir practice now, I don't mind doing it when I get back. Guy 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you know it's quite easy: the article has been moved to project space, a fork has been created at Place names considered unusual, so the DRV is moot per status quo. Guy 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no clicky?

Guy, is your new sig not supposed to be clickable from your talk page? rodii 21:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only links to talk - links to the current url without internal links (#) do not render as links. Guy 22:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus. Now I know why it didn't work when I dressed up my signature. I never thought to wonder whether it was the software doing that, I just figured I had screwed up the code somehow. Now I feel dumb. *cries*

I like the new look, anyway. rodii 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took me several minutes of puzzled source code analysis before I worked out what was going on :-) Guy 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide University Engineering Society

What's the point of placing {{deletedpage}} on this page if it's not protected? --TML1988 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To warn people that it's been deleted and should not be re-created without good reason, but to allow them to re-create if good reason exists. If it is re-created with trivia again despite that, it might get protected, but right now I think the notice should be enough. Guy 11:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:John1838

Please look into this attack page (which mentions me) when you can and let me know what I can do. Thanks...KHM03 00:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sig

What happened to Just zis?

I like the old signature, sorry but its true!! Mike _{(T C)} 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, perhaps slightly overboard on the minimalism. See how this works out. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just seeing if I can edit with my BlackBerry - seems I can! But no tilde character.

Wonder if you could create a template with the tidles and subst it? I am sure there would be somewhere in the blackberry to add tidles though. Oh the redid signature is awesome though. Mike _{(T C)}

16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD vote

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples) since you voted on the deletion of the same text under a different article name. Septentrionalis 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burninated as repost. Thanks for the heads-up. Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identity crisis?

Identity crisis? 3 user names in one week! FloNight ^talk 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trying to reduce the size of the sig and still have it visible in long discussion threads. A tricky job! Still the same guy, mind :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like version two. It's bold! rodii 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help on GFDL issues?

Guy, could you help out here? New user User:Kathychen has created an article that's pretty iffy wrt copyright. She's asking me for advice on how to proceed but I just don't feel like I'm enough of an expert on this. I don't want to just throw the copyvio flag--she seems like a good contributor. The initial discussion was at Help desk, but the article in question is Berman Bioethics and her comment on my talk page is here. Any advice appreciated. rodii 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind

Adding Jason Gastrich's site to any article is going to get you in trouble. Just a friendly warning. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a jackass. I worked hard on my contribution and you reverted the entire thing for no good reason; much of which wasn't links to "Jason Gastrich's site". So, as I said, don't be a jackass. If you think something doesn't belong, take it to the talk page. You aren't above the law. --Jack White1 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And reacting lkike Gastrich does is also going to get you in trouble. That's two friendly warnings. If you haven't seen the edit history and talk page for Hovind it's about time you looked. Just zis Guy you know? 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off Fish Eaters

Your animus against this non-commercial site is a little bit disgusting and all too obvious. First you denote any link to it as "linkspam" because someone broke some unwritten rule about having "too many links" (whatever that means exactly, and in spite of the fact that all links were non-commercial and relevant), and then you blast it because Alexa didn't report a lot of traffic to it within DAYS AFTER IT CHANGED DOMAINS. Looks like that site didn't need Wikipedia after all:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000CMO6QK/103-3956901-1045461?v=glance

-- which doesn't go to say that Wikipedia readers don't deserve to have links to information about the historical practices of the Church, and the practices of millions of traditional Catholics, people who are apparently hated by Anglicans. Your religious bigotry is showing and has been for a while now.

I see you are Anonymous again. Any site which links itself to 100+ articles is a link spammer in my book. I have given my reasons in full before now. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there aren't 100 links now (how many non-commercial, added-by-human-hands, relevant links to specific, relevant pages on relevant entries is too many again?). In fact, there isn't even one, as far as I know, so what is the problem? When are you going to stop deleting any and all links to a traditional Catholic site -- one whose present Alexa report blows your "nevermind the Christmastime domain name change, it OBVIOUSLY gets all its traffic from Wiki" theory out of the water -- just because of your false categorization thereof? How much of your malfunction in this regard is a result of ego, how much is a product of your anti-Rome Anglicanism, and how much is a matter of too many falls from your bicycle? Especially given Google's ranking of Wiki pages, your "linkspam" routine is libelous.

Could you just clarify for me in what way your mixture of personal attacks, ad-hominem and insinuations of legal threats is supposed to help your case? Just zis Guy you know? 23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thinly veiled threat

i was just reading the latest rant from JG that you posted on the Gastrich evidence page. What is strange is that there seemed to be abosolutely no justified reason for him going off like that. If you look at CDThieme contributions at the time he nominated that page for AfD there was no reason to believe he did it except he thought it was non notable. Prior to Dec 8th 2005, CDThieme (talk · contribs) had zero interaction with Gastrich. This is striking since it highlights Gastrich's "everyone is out to get me" mentality that, to be frank, looks a lot like paranoia. David D. (Talk) 21:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the result of an edit war over adding Gastrich to Typosquatting for talkorigin.org. Just zis Guy you know? 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I was forgetting you only see the last edit for any given page in contributions. Excuse my brainfart. So we can just put this one down to good old-fashioned retribution. David D. (Talk) 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breyer "state" U vandalism

I doubt that the vandalism will stop after a few weeks. "Bsuinfosys" reads to me as "BSU Info(rmation) Sys(tems). These guys are going to keep attacking the primary article that exposes them. --Red King 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. POV pushers are generally not that tenacious, as a rule they realise it's a battle they can't win. The link to St. Regis could do with some work, at present it's insinuation and unless some more specifics can be given, scepticism might be justified. Just zis Guy you know? 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Wife

Thank you so much. How did you find me, sir? Chris 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can even remember. Your talk page is on my watchlist, for no reason which springs readily to mind, and as a result I saw the comments. I subscribe to the "friends you haven't met before" school of thought, so I dropped by to offer my condolences, but words are (of course) inadequate. An unimaginable loss which I sincerely hope I will never have to deal with myself - as a depressive anyway I would handle it appallingly. You show great dignity, I salute you. Just zis Guy you know? 00:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]