User talk:JzG/Archive 24

I will be dealing with some of JzG's stuff on Wiki

I will be trying to deal with requests and issues that go to JzG for the indefinite future. I may not be able to deal with all of them, since I am not nearly as experienced or prolific an editor as JzG. I'll try to check his talk page a few times a day, but if something needs urgent attention, an email to me and/or a message on my talk page will probably work better. JoshuaZ 01:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in too of course, with the same caveats. My sincere condolences to Guy at this time - sigh. --kingboyk 02:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Guy just received a templated newsletter, which I have moved to User talk:JzG/Temp 1. I suggest moving all low-importance content to that subpage to keep this one clear. He can move/delete/archive it as he sees fit upon his return. --kingboyk 02:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I can do to help? JzG is "good people"... condolences, and hope all works out well in the end for you Guy... ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences to JzG. Stephen B Streater 07:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, you are in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. A Transportation Enthusiast 12:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy: I'm praying for you and yours. "May your God be with you." - Arie. AvB ÷ talk 12:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ et al., if I can help (as a non-admin) I'll gladly make time for it. AvB ÷ talk 12:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences Guy. All the best.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take care, mate. Condolences. NSL E _(T+C) at 03:50 UTC (2006-05-23)

My condolences to you. All the best. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences from me and mine as well, JzG. I'll be glad to help out with anything. RasputinAXP c 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that. Waiting is. Midgley 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content undeletion requests

Hi JzG,

I hope your wikibreak is going well. I will be very grateful if a kind administrator posted the contents of the deleted userboxes Drug-free, atheist, evolution2, evol-N and antiuserboxdeletion at a subpage of my userpage for userification. Thanks.Loom91 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonella Gambotto-Burke

Hi, I've added and deleted some material with a view to giving the article more balance - unsurprisingly, that's being disputed. I feel input from a neutral and level-headed editor is needed at this stage. If you could take a look at the recent history and make some suggestions I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Dlyons493 Talk 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Sorry about the bereavement Guy - I only noticed the top of your page on exit. Dlyons493 Talk

To any editor who is interested in looking into this - User:Sarahgeorge is the ~~publicist~~ publisher for Broken Ankle Books who published Antonella Gambotto-Burke most recent book. She (and what looks like her IP Address) are the main editors of the article (with some apparent vandalism from an Australian school). She's had some email correspondence with Guy. Suggest you look at the history of her talk page (some relevant edits have been blanked) and the first version of the Antonella Gambotto-Burke article which I've been trying to NPOV. All help appreciated. Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuatafa Hori (again)

Tuatafa Hori was not a fake, and was not proved as such. She was deleted simply because she was suspected, and is now under protection so that she cannot be created again. The book was a proper source. They found some Myspace things that mentioned her so they assumed that she was a hoax, however, that is no basis for that type of assumption. I have a friend whos screen name is that of a historical queen, but does that mean that she made up that particular queen? I just don't think this particular issue was given enough credit-- they just wanted to get rid of it. 72.144.223.101 14:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (reposted by me from archive page - RasputinAXP c 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hoax or not, a single source which is not available nion more than ahandful of libraries amounts to functionally unverifiable, or at best of so little objectively measurable significance as to be unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Rummel is always Right (again)

This article has been recreated in a different format. You discussed the deletion of a previous version; please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies; it may be that this version is less POV. Septentrionalis 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, justa question, you know?

What does the British Flag have to do with Admin-ship? And how is that Quality Vandalism? Livin' Large 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing: that's why it's vandalism :-) And it's "quality" because of the flag. I have low entertainment threshold. Just zis Guy you know? 07:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidaway RFC

It sounds like you're complaining about RFCs in general, rather than commenting on this one in particular. No RFC has ever helped build an encyclopedia- I thought this was obvious. RFCs are used in those unfortunate circumstances when there's a problem. So far, a good number of people have found Tony Sidaway's behavior to be disruptive to building that great encyclopedia- hence the RFC. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look much harder at why he does what he does. Tony is fantastically aggravating a lot of the time, but almost invariably right. Just zis Guy you know? 17:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on the RFC, I find him to be right about 75% of the time, but that's not he issue. The issue is, right or wrong he's so hamfistedly disruptive that many of us think it's important that he change his behavior. Sadly, he becomes selectively deaf when he hears criticism- a terrible, terrible trait for an editor. Anyway, I also responded to this a little bit at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3#JzG.27s_view if you care to read. I understand if you don't- RFCs are certainly an unfortunate distraction from useful work, as I attemped to explain on the talk page. Friday (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the sigs he's objecting to? [[Image: Pentacle-circumscribed.png|20px]][[User:Search4Lancer|Search]][[Special:Contributions/Search4Lancer|4]][[User_talk:Search4Lancer|Lancer]][[Image: Pennsylvania state flag.png|26px]] 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC) for example? Just zis Guy you know? 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That takes 15 lines on my mobile edit window (the whole screen). PS Welcome back. Most of the action has been on the T1/T2 debates summarised (incredibly) here - the sigs are a mild diversion. If you want something completely different to look at, I've started getting my FORscene article ready for DRV here. This has a week or two more work on it, I expect. Stephen B Streater 21:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even edit it on my Blackberry 8700, too long. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read that particular debate on my phone ;-) Stephen B Streater 22:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good editors are hard to find. Ones that are invariably right are like diamonds. It's the ones that are ameniable, but often misguided, ignorant, or worse, widely admired by others and often wrong that lead good publications down the drain. Keep Tony. Dr1819 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's the ones who flatly refuse to acknowledge even the theoretical possibility that they might be wrong who get the bum's rush from Wikipedia :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passing through...

Hello friends. I have just been catching up on a couple of things, I will be back at least to some degree but not as active as before, or at least not for a while. There has been a life-changing event.

My sister, 21 months younger than me, died on 20 May. The cause is not a state secret but I'm not really ready to talk about it here right now. I was there when she died, and I can safely say that was the worst moment of my life (and presumably hers, though fortunately she was well out of it by the end). What with helping to organise the funeral, actually managing to get the kids on holiday, driving back from Baie du Somme to Hertfordshire for the day to see her off, and the complete emotional exhaustion the whole thing has caused - to say nothing of having to find the money to buy my other sister a car with brakes - things are feeling pretty stragnge right now.

My sincere thanks to all who have sent supportive messages, and to those who have picked up the many loose ends I left dangling. I'll be back to work next week, and will be looking to make some contributions to the project soon. Just zis Guy you know? 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How terrible. I can't really say any more than that. Real life comes first, so take your time Guy, and in the meantime your friends here will be thinking of you, I'm sure. I certainly will.

I've watchlisted a couple of the articles you usually keep an eye on (unaccredited universities and Guildford (?); several whitewashing edits have been reverted and culprits blocked... I look forward to having you back to over :) --kingboyk 18:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been strange and intense. Unreal, at times. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry Guy. My prayers to you and your family during this difficult time. -- Samir धर्म 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Guy, I'm so sorry. I hope you and your family can find some consolation somehow. Please take it easy and don't rush things. In my experience all the... reverberations can take some time to die down.

Thanks for letting us know what's going on. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was concerned. My thoughts are with you. · rodii · 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to feel numb now. I was there when she died, and I really hope I never have to do that again. I'll make a user page to explain the ins and outs some time - people here have been good to me and I am a WYSIWYG kind of person - but right now I don't have the words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences. Hang in there, man. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences as well... focus on real life and view WP as a thing to use for stress relief, a way to escape and work on something you enjoy, rather than viewing it as an obligation. Real life comes first. Hang in there, you have a large circle of well wishers if that's any consolation. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my belated condolences here as well. (I didn't read about what happened until I was checking up on Samir's RFA.) I can't claim to understand everything you're going through, and I hope I never have to deal with something like that. I'm sure it's a stressful time, though, so if Wikipedia adds to that stress in any way, feel free to step back for a time. I hope the memories of your time with your sister will comfort you, as well. --Elkman 15:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this. My condolences. If there's anything I can assist with, let me know. FeloniousMonk 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest sympathies, Guy, I just saw this. Know that you are in our thoughts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I just saw your comment on WP:AN and realized I hadn't seen you around AfD and elsewhere for a while, and came to your user page and saw the news. Please accept my sincere (and belated) condolences. --MCB 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry to read of the death of your sister. May she always shine in your memory.

Davidkevin 08:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I know we've had horrendous battles on the PRT pages, and we still disagree almost daily (sometimes angrily) but I do hope you take none of it personally. I've come to respect you even in disagreement, and I've learned a heck of a lot about Wikipedia just by watching your actions here. I say all this because I just read your page detailing tragic events of the last month, and I don't want our seemingly endless debates to add to your frustrations. Just because we have diametrically opposed positions on Wikipedia content doesn't mean I don't feel for what you've been through recently. I hope you don't take it too seriously... A Transportation Enthusiast 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TE, I greatly appreciate that (and all the kind and supportive messages I've had, here and by email). No, of course it's not personal - I am confident that if we met over a beer we'd get along just fine; we probably agree on more things than we disagree, it's just that we're not talking about those things. I think we should add to WP:NOT that "Wikipedia is not real life". The upside is that sometimes it sucks a lot less than real life does... Just zis Guy you know? 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ID.

I'm just interesting about your ID. Is your ID JzG just for abbreviation? Please, Reply on my talk-page. Thanks. Just ask you for about your ID. '''*Daniel*''' 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Giant Lafree Twist Comfort Gts.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Giant Lafree Twist Comfort Gts.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

On DRV, you said that List of tongue-twisters should be restored because it was deleted at Wikibooks. It has however, also been transwiki'd to Wikiquote, where it has not (yet) been deleted. -Splash - tk 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of List of tongue-twisters

I'm notifying you because you voted recently at Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of tongue-twisters. Since your vote, additional information (merely, the fact that the content was transwikied to Wikiquote) has emerged. I'd therefore like to ask you to revise (or confirm) your vote in light of this additional information. Thank you, and sorry for bothering you about his. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northandsouth

Yeah, I think you're right. Next steps? Someday you need to share your method with me of getting confirmation. FeloniousMonk 15:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually ask at WP:RFCU. It's unlikely to be possible to confirm at this stage, since Gastrich has not been active for months. I'll watch the edits, though, and we can go by them I think. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

First, I am not a sock puppet (I assume you mean Jason). Second, I have to figure out how to file a complaint with Wikipedia. I am amazed that I am providing factual information and you call it a "white wash". The article says LBU makes false accreditation claims. They do not. It says degrees by Life experience, they do not. I have made the challenge to show me several times and NO ONE has done so. When I edited I left the good and bad in there. LBU is at least honest. This article is dishonest and you have an obvious bias that means deleting material that does not serve your interest. I provided facts, you nothing. In arbitration your assertions will not stand up. LBU catalogue clearly says...we are not accredited, you are unlikely to become a certified teacher...you will not be able to obtain counselor certifcation, etc. What you and the folks who dislike LBU and refuse to at least present factual unbiased information are doing is essentially bullying. It is also dishonest.

Nordundsud 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud[reply]

Feel free to raise an RFC, in fact please do as I am likely to be kicked out of the rouge admin cabal any day due to the fact that there is as yet not one RfC or RFAr against me, whereas Tony Sidaway who is not even a member is never off the lists. Sadly the assurance that you are not a sockpuppet does not cut too much ice, good faith notwithstanding, as several of Gastrich's proven puppets (verified by CheckUser) said the same. I don't care one way or the other about LBU, I do care about edit warring. It is not the way to achieve anything. Just zis Guy you know? 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet

The fact that you think I am a sock puppet is amusing and to me (unprovable) demonstrates a shocking lack of intuition. I know who Jason is because about 95% of anything negative I ever saw about LBU was due to his interactions with others. Don't know what to make of him (strange run for Governor of Calfornia and even stranger concession speech). Not to mention the fact that although I am going to a fundamentalist school I am not a fundamentalist (enjoy reading Spong & Borg). As an FYI, I have three accredited degree (BA thru doctorate).

My editing, was in order to get factual information in. I don't mind having in there that some have accused LBU of being a mill. I do mind wierd assertions like LBU is a mill because they claim false accreditation or offer Life Credit Degrees. Utter unsupportable nonsense. That is why no one could support those assertions with references. To leave that in the article is wrong.

LBU is among the most honest unaccredited schools in terms of saying so several times and noting that because they do not have accreditation you will not likely become a certified teacher and will not qualify for mental health licensure.

As a side note, not all unaccredited schools are mills. They do have some large limitations in terms of their use as you note in your latest edit. You may want to read Bear's Guide. Dr. Bear has worked with the FBI to sting diploma mills and is the foremost expert in distance education. I think he is currently on Gov. Schwarzenegger's Board that deals with education.

Your last edits that I read were fine and honest. Thank you!

Nordundsud 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud[reply]

My edits usually are fine and honest - in my view. And what I said was that you risk being identified as a sockpuppet - with over 100 Gastrich puppets blocked, it is a strong possibility whenever anyone starts writing apologetic material about any Southern Baptist institution. The main thing is to ensure that the reader understands that these institutions have no real significance outside the American Baptist church, and then we can all get on with life. The use of {{unaccredited}}, which I substed in the lead, is good because it means we use a consistent form of words every time, one which is neutral in tone. Which is (of course) why I created it in the first place. I certainly agree with you that Gastgrich is a rum 'un, though... Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich posted briefly on a distance education forum board that I frequent and it was a strange experience. He did not hold up well and left. That was my first encounter. Searched his page and could not believe he was serious about himself. His concession speech was quite bizarre and written as if he were a major contender for Governor of California. At any rate, education and accreditation issues are hobbies of mine and subjects that I am very...very familiar with. We have people on these education boards pursuing degrees from the University of London to the University of Zululand. I certainly always recommend accredited institutions due to versality (etc.). With Australian and South African degrees (accredited) being so affordable there is little point in pursuing unaccredited degrees. Unaccredited schools do serve a certain constituency. In the US there are some fundamentalist schools like Pensacola Christian that will not have anything to do with the government. The BBFI is a fundamentalist Baptist group (some of whom see the Southern Baptist Convention as too liberal). You are correct that terminology is interesting because you use the term "American Baptist", they are actually a variety of Baptist (rather liberal) that would probably not have anything to do with the BBFI. The openly homosexual preacher and chair holder at Princeton, Peter Gomes, is an American Baptist. He probably won't be appearing at any of the BBFI college commencement ceremonies any time soon. The very conservative BBFI theological stand espoused by LBU is probably one reason that Attorney General Ashcroft was a commencemnt speaker there. Ashcroft was a very conservative Christian (Bush's first Attorney General).

At any rate, I see you are Anglican. I grew up as an Anglican (wonderful English grandmother). One of my degrees is from a Commonwealth country and the other two accredited degrees are American. Miss my grandmother's Roast beef & Yorkshire pudding, bubble and squeak, sheperd's pie, plum pudding, etc. Still drink black indian tea with milk though.

Nordundsud 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Nordundsud[reply]

Removing fisheaters.com from Spam blacklist

A request has been made to remove the domain fisheaters.com from the spam blacklist [1]. As you are the one that requested it be listed, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a reason why I should or should not remove it. Thanks Naconkantari 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have asked Jimbo, too, and I gave him pretty much the same reply as I've posted on the meta talk page. To save clicking the link: see User:JzG/Fisheaters. I have no confidence that the (anonymous) operator of this site will do anything other than what she did before: add the site (in preference to either content or links to the same content at more authoritative sites) to large numbers of articles. Oh, and edit-war over its removal. Prior to its addition to the blacklist I was scanning the project monthly for new links and finding anything up to ten new links each time, on various language versions, many with misleading desriptions (Catholic view of foo or traditional Catholic view of foo - this is a Traditionalist - i.e. dissenting from the mainstream Vatican II - site). I also found several additions with misleading edit summaries, and at least one to the full text of a particular rite which was also available from the (demonstrably more authoritative) Vatican site. I don't recall any of these additions being by logged-in users. So: what we lose by having the site on the blacklist is one link to a monograph of unproven authority in one article; what we gain is a saving in time for me, scanning the project for the anonymous addition almost certainly by the site operator of linkspam. You can see why that looks like an easy call to me, but I'm not the meta sysop. Just zis Guy you know? 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've denied the request. Naconkantari 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objective validity of astrology

Your comments on the nature of the page spurred me to start an AfD nom. Comment here if you like. Marskell 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to disagree. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m:MPOV and WP:TIGERS

Sandstein has requested that his page not be cluttered with whatever dispute you may have with me.

By the way, I read both the MPOV and Tigers pages with keen interest. Both of these are rather insightful articles. I found it rather amazing how closely the criteria for inclusion into either category resembles just four of the more than twenty posters who've provided well-stated, clear, concise, and most importantly, qualified comments, both positive and negative, to my articles. It's nice to know that so few Wiki editors fall into these categories. Sadly, the four who did fall into one or more categories are apparently unaware that that they do, or that disagreement is healthy, provided the discussion remains civil, threats or invitations to leave (very uncivil) remain absent, and the focus centers around the details and quality of the article, rather than degenerating childishly into who's right or wrong. These simple rules of debate can be learned in any high school.

Of particular note were the very polite and well-crafted suggestions at the bottom of the Tiger's article. Unfortunately, I've seen very few suggestions resembling those in the comments, most disturbingly, including among a few admins. I also loved the the following statement on the MPOV article: "Upon reading this list, you are convinced that most of the people you deal with are suffering from MPOV." Sadly, I cannot lay claim to this thought, as I've only found about four of more than twenty posters to whom this applies, and then only on topics which are highly controversial in more conservative circles. The other topics I've created, or edited, to which I apply the same care, thankfull remain free of uncivility, personal attacks, etc. Who was it who said, "The best example you can provide is the one you put forth yourself?" On second thought, I could use a good polishing, too. Always room for improvement! Dr1819 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are measurting everything according to how closely it matches your own preconceived notions. You really need to try to be more objective. And you need to realise that the criticisms of the two contended articles are valid (they come from long-term, experienced and respected contributors). Instead of simply re-stating your view that the criticisms are baseless, you need to engage and find out what needs to be done to fix them. I've already given you my view on that. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sig

I've been following the discussions on sigs and I remember you saying something about shortening your name to JzG to make editing talk pages simpler. I'm thinking of having a new signature and am looking at requirements:

Shorter than my current one - several people have recognised me from my name, but my ego does not require this ;-)
Have a link to my talk page as well as my user page.
Three characters maximum.

To keep the signature short in edit mode, I'll need a new login name as this would be referred to twice - once each for the user page and the talk page. SS is gone, as is St, but as both my names start with St, I was thinking about: S t²

The "S" represents me and links to my user page, the "t" links to my talk page. The "t" is a bit short to click on, and "St" could be confused with the (inactive) user of that name. As both my names start with St, the ^"2" solves both problems.

I'm planning to wait until after my RfA, but wondered if there were any logistical issues in transferring everything over to a new id. Would I need a bureaucrat to help, for example? And of course, if it's a bad idea, the next few weeks would be a good time to mention it ;-) Stephen B Streater 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in on someone elses talk page... But are you serious? People get pissed off with the fancy crap that you're proposing to use. What's wrong with the standard sig? As it is just now? Your current sig is quite simple when it's seen within an edit:

[[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]]

and the "improvement":

[[User:St2|S]][[User Talk:St2|t2]]

is a much longer string of gibberish! Thanks for reading/wangi 21:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if I add my talk page it comes out as [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]][[User Talk:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater Talk]] and the new one is shorter. Stephen B Streater 21:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple reply to that is... well don't add it — the majority seem to manage just fine :) /wangi 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to know me, you'll understand that I am not the majority. Also new technology may soon allow sigs to be minimised in edit mode and re-expanded in view mode. Stephen B Streater 06:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, I don't think your sig is a problem at all, and there is every reason to post with your real name (although no reason not to). My original one was "Just zis Guy, you know?" whihc was foolishly long. Yours is not much longer than Tony Sidaway; I don't see a problem. But a beuraucrat can arrange to move your histry to a new account if you like. Just zis Guy you know? 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot to mention the other pun "t" for talk and ^"2" for to ie talk to (me). I think I'll just keep it in reserve, as people have been able to find my talk page. Stephen B Streater 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819

An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you have been involved in discussing his behavior on these articles, you may wish to certify the dispute or add your thoughts on the issue. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New FORscene article

I've got a meeting right now and will be back later. [2]. Stephen B Streater 11:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not unexpected (even though I put an HTML comment in there that it is not eligible for Db-repost). I have left a note for Sleepyhead. His experience was much like yours (he works for 24SevenOffice which was originally deleted as WP:VSCA). He polices a number of list articles and does a great job of defending against the spammers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stephen B Streater 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Objective validity of astrology AfD

The AfD looks like it could be headed to majority delete but not consensus delete and thus kept (say 65% del). This is in some ways the worst outcome. Disinterested editors have rightly said get it out of here, while a handful of people into astrology will veto deletion. Is there anywhere it can be brought up, say with editors who work on a lot of science articles? The RfC pages generate little and it doesn't seem right to bring up an AfD at the sci Help Desk.

I realize I'm sort of asking "how can we game the system" but at the same time it strikes me as a good example of an article that if seen by long-term editors would certainly get shot down for violating all three content policies in ample measure. Marskell 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could take it to WikiEN-l I guess, or you could take a scythe to the article and reduce it to its verifiable core. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll spam a couple of talk pages. Is it considered bad form to "campaign" over AfDs? I've never really felt the need to do so until now. Marskell 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad form unless the people have been involved in prior debate on the issue, or unless you take steps to inform others you believe will support inclusion. It would be permissible to bring it to the attention of all users with a contribution to the article or the relevant section in the parent, pro or anti. Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Gurch

Thanks for the support – Gurch 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Meh, it's not really just problems as much as stress that would hinder Wikipedia, so I'm taking a brief side-step for the benefit of the project. And don't worry about BB Sinha, I acted rash and that was not approate (I think I spelt that wrong). I have just followed that article and had been urging the creator to bring sources, and well he said he had a photocopy, but I think he gave up. To be honest, I don't know the true extent of his humanitarian efforts, I saw Paul Farmer speak and it was fascinating, but I learned that 97% of humanitarians don't get recognized, because...well, of the field they work in. Thank you, again for all you concerns and you are an awesome admin! Yanksox 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi JzG/Archive 24, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean re the Robert Steadman comment at DRV?

I replied on Robertsteadman's talk page. He is Robsteadman, and has been unblocked per a discussion on AN a month or so ago per conditions held in my userspace linked from Robertsteadman's talk page. Syrthiss 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what you miss when you go on Wikibreak? Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heheh thats what Essjay said. :) Syrthiss 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice anything suspicious?

[3] [4]. Some of the legal points looks quite interesting, but I don't think he's come across WP:NPOV. Stephen B Streater 17:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the classic hatchet job. Pruned the Royal Dutch article, well done on sucks.com Just zis Guy you know? 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Guy, one of my favorite editors Herostratus is being eaten alive on his Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus. Please see my comment and support if you think it is wise. I think that you are familar with Sam's the out of process deletion of the image on Lolicon article and likely understand the complexity of the decision. I think Herostratus is being unfairly portrayed by some oppose voters on that topic. FloNight talk 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading this Talk page, please go along and see this debate. Herostratus is a good editor and approaches things with humanity and humour (see this creative warning for example). Some opposition is based on fair reasoning, others seems to me to be based on an unnecessarily slavish devotion to formula. Do please review Herostratus (talk · contribs) and vote according to what you see there and Jimbo's immortal words: this should be no big deal. Just zis Guy you know? 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troublesome fellow

Do you mind having a look at User:Stanfordandson? He started an account today, made his first main space edit to Gay Nigger Association of America, and then decided to troll (in my very honest opinion) the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology page. I've actually been reported at 3RR for the first time! Though I seem to only have made three... Marskell 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear on name Stanfordandson not Stanfordansdon is the user in question. Thx for quick response. Marskell 22:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erk, I'm sorry if I'm annoying you. Could you make a comment on the 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Marskell_reported_by_User:Stanfordandson? With due diligence, no one should block me (I was essentially responding to vandalism) but you confirming the sense he was a troll would set my mind at ease. What's your sign BTW ;) Marskell 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see there, I reckon. Just zis Guy you know? 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you sir. Marskell 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote on Herostratus' RfA

Hi there! I am leaving you a note to ask you to clarify something. Per your edit summary, are you calling my "oppose" vote or my opinion on the topic of snarking "perverse"? Thanks and have a great day - Aguerriero (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that fixing a spam article to a neutral one (albeit including critical info) is somehow bad; it's something I've done myself more than once. Sorry, that was an unnecessarily terse edit summary and I see how it could be misread - nothing personal. Just zis Guy you know? 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I actually really really really want to support Herostratus.. I am just really troubled by the snarking. It just seems like it's meant to be a "gotcha" on the writer of the vanity article, and not a constructive encyclopedia-building activity. Perhaps I'm overreacting? Perhaps I need to mull it over, over a couple of Newcastles? I'm torn! Aguerriero (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howay, broons aal roond, like. Maybe subverting someone's vanity article is just the teensiest bit naughty, but where would we be without that little bit of devilry every now and then? Just zis Guy you know? 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Supporting my RfA!

My Request for Adminship passed with flying colors (54/6/1), and I thank you for supporting me. I aspire to continue being a "Good Guy" in my adminship duties. Sometimes, "Good Guy"s can make bad decisions, and it is in that respect that I ask for your help. If you ever find me doing anything out of the ordinary, please let me know. Thanks again for your support, Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Cabal :-) Just zis Guy you know? 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What am I supposed to do?

It's not as clear as your statement suggests. I have no intention of prelonging a revert war on WP:ANI. At the same time, I think what he was doing to my comments - seperating them from what I was commenting upon - was uncool, and he refused to explain it. If I'd reverted them, there's no guarantee I wouldn't myself have been reported. Perhaps you'd have called that report frivolous, perhaps not. How should I know? I do know that I find such talk page behavior maddening, and that it's a drag having to revert just to keep one's comments in their intended context. If this report solves this issue, great. Netscott should not be moving other editors' comments like this. That's not cool.Timothy Usher 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Netscott chooses to interleave comments there is probably a good reason. I note the edit summaries say things like restoring formatting and explanation for out of context comments - it looks like a communication problem. Why not ask Netscott why he did this? Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you've seen, I did try to communicate with him. He ignored me. Then he left that obnoxious disclaimer in his last two changes.Timothy Usher 13:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a couple of ours ago, and you didn't ask an open question, you asked him to stop. Now how about seeing if the two of you can get along and play nicely? Honestly, it's a teacup tempest. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can I get your guarantee that, if I move my comments back to where they were, I won't be blocked? If so, that's what I'll do. But I need that guarantee, because the letter of the law says that I can't, and I want to stay within it. Can you appreciate that?Timothy Usher 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about not moving your comments back until you've found out why an admin moved them? That would seem to be the obvious course here. Wht's the rush? Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott's not an admin. He's directly involved in the conversation, and repeatedly took my comments out of context.Timothy Usher 21:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he isn't. No matter. All he did was to re-order a page; you have had cordial relations with him in the past, why fly off the handle now? Just zis Guy you know? 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been cordial to me lately, and I didn't find his continually moving my comments even after I'd pleaded with him to stop particularly cordial. Just the other day, we'd agreed to bury the hatchet, but he started it up last night for reasons I don't really understand. As you say, we've had good relations in the past. I would like those to resume.Timothy Usher 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaded? I didn't see it as that. I saw a garden-variety dispute over minor refactoring of a convoluted discussion. I'm sure the two of you can sort it out between yourselves if you try; questions tend to work better than demands in my experience. Just zis Guy you know? 06:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times in a row must I say "please" before it qualifies as pleading? I didn't warn him, I told him my reasons, and asked for one specific and legimate thing, he ignored it, then did it including an obnoxious in-line commentary blaming me for things being out-of-place. Where there is a comment A, and then a tabbed reply B thereto placed immediately below it, it's not a legitimate "refactoring" to seperate these, such that it's no longer clear which comment prompted the reply.Timothy Usher 06:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not a great medium for communication. Like I say, talk about it with him properly, I can't imagine why this is being blown up as it is. Just zis Guy you know? 07:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Thank you for your comment on the history page. yes I appear to have botched my request for an application for the page to be placed on the deletion list. I have left a note on the Talk Page. As an administrator can I ask you to assist me in getting that template up.

You asked for evidence of his writings. He has written countless articles and essays and is, of course, an editor also. A long lost of his works was on the previous article now scrapped. It was stated that they were irrelevant.

I feel the time has come to close that page. Sussexman 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and essays do not a writer make. A writer (in the accepted sense) writes books, an essayist writes essays (but is implied by politician), a journalist or editor (which we say he is) writes articles. To nominate for deletion insert {{subst:afdx|third}} in the article head, {{subst:afd2|pg=Gregory lauder-Frost}} in the AfD and then add the listing to the bottom of the daily AfD log with {{subst:afd3|pg=Gregory Lauder-Frost (third nomination)}}. And be prepared to have it speedily closed since we've only just closed the last AfD, and your principal motivation for deletiong it seems to be that it is now neutral instead of a hagiography. Just zis Guy you know? 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are no academic. Otherwise you'd know that in writing a thesis or whatever that is it very common to quote from articles which have been thoroughly researched and which appeared in learned journals/magazines, whatever. You would also know that most politicians right up to the 20th century wrote "pamphlets" rather than books and they were duly called "political writers". The Communist Manifesto, for instance, was issued as a phamplet. It was composed by a political writer. As for you guys trying to say you're all being fair and neutral with GLF - pleas, give us all a break. The garbage about his court case etc., is now the largest item on his page. Buts what you all really wanted, wasn't it. 81.131.4.94 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As usual wen an anonymous editor makes dogmatic assertions in relation to Lauder-Frost, this is entirely irrelevant. A "writer" does not imply a pamphleteer, editor, journalist or essayist. It implies an author of books. Otherwise we are all writers. Just zis Guy you know? 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist Manifesto, for instance, was issued as a phamplet."

If Marx and Engels had written the Communist Manifesto and nothing else they would be pamphleteers and nothing else - as it was they went on to write a number of books. Homey 19:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Report commentary re: User:Timothy Usher

Very appropriate and much appreciated. Thanks for that. Netscott 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to his question would have been good, mind. Just zis Guy you know? 06:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to be confrontational, but just as an observation of fact, you gave him a reason not to when you dismissed the report so brusquely. Netscott's behavior here was palpably rude, in line with the tone he's adopted toward me in recent days.Timothy Usher 06:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, as you yourself gathered from my WP:ANI editorial commentary it doesn't take a genius to understand what I was doing by repositioning the relative commentary to it's original position. User:Timothy Usher was just being obstinate in his insistence on having the affected commentary remain out of place and context chronologically. Please see my addition to Timothy Usher's unfounded 3RR report against me. Netscott 07:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this may be the case, but it would not cost anything to give a calm and civil summary of why you did things on his Talk. I can't see why the two of you have descended to bickering - I guess I don't want to know. Please send Mr Ego to the timeout room and at least apologise for upsetting him. Just zis Guy you know? 07:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, I acknowledged on your talk page that there may have been reasons for some of your moves, but what can be the reason for stranding comments to an existing post? If you move a post, you should move comments to it as well. Am I missing something here? I can accept that Netscott was acting earnestly, but fail to see how such negligence can be legitimate. All he had to do is take a few moments to look at what I'd asked him not to do, and ask why I might have taken issue with that particular (presumably unintended) effect.Timothy Usher 07:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has occurred to me previously, no big deal I adjusted my commentary to make mention of the previously misplaced commentary... common sense... hello? JzG, I've taken issue with Timothy Usher ever since he falsely utilized my talk page to accuse User:Azate (a very respectable editor in good standing) of spamming and when demonstrated that his accusation was false he didn't apologize. That is just asinine. Timothy Usher's recent tendency to defend hate speech through equivocation and support a user who has engaged in it has severely reduced my respect for him. As well Timothy Usher has not demonstrated a capacity for proper research on numerous occassions relative to his statements and is quick to jump to false conclusions and post accordingly. I'm seriously starting to have difficulty assuming good faith relative to his editing of late particularly when he questions my motives and essentially says that I'm trying to "gain points" in my revealing User:FairNBalanced's hateful ways. That's utter nonsense. Anyways, you're not really involved in this whole affair but I'm becoming less inclined to pursue the matter with Timothy Usher because much like User:Bishonen I'm finding attempts at dialogue with him wasteful of my time as I have to keep repeating myself to him in a similiar way that Sisyphus has to roll a huge rock up a hill thoughout eternity. Netscott 07:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I apologize for this disruption of your talk page. Say the word and this'll be taken elsewhere if needed. Netscott 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comments of your newfound ally are not encouraging.Timothy Usher 07:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Newfound ally"? A truly inane statement if ever there was one. User:Amibidhrohi has made very valid points of late relative to yourself (I thought his comment about how you portrayed yourself as a Muslim relative to baiting User:Monty2 particularly salient). As well User:Amibidhrohi's pointing out that User:FairNBalanced made himself a member of varioius Muslim involved areas on Wikipedia and then proceeded to do his hateful flame-baiting was equally salient. Netscott 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you associate yourself with editors known for anti-Semitic comments, you don't have a lot of credibility when imputing guilt-by-association to others. Your "salient" points are rather irrelevant. FNB's gloating over Zarqawi's death was off-topic, and his use of foul language uncalled-for and juvenile. So what? Is hatred for Al-Qaeda what passes for anti-Muslim bigotry in your eyes? That Monty2 thing is even more absurd. His accusations were ridiculous, and hardly meritted a serious response. Meanwhile your new friend says the Jews are out to get him. Another "salient point"?Timothy Usher 08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not judge each other by your contributions and simply disagree about other editors? I don't see either of you as problem editors at a quick review. Just zis Guy you know? 12:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You recently blocked me for edits I made to the AfD of the article about the objective validity of astrology, saying blocking me till the end of the 'vote' would suffice. However, my block has expired, but the AfD isn't over yet. Please feel free to block me again until it is done. Stanfordandson 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I blocked you for disruption. If you've calmed down and don't resume that behaviour, you won't need re-blocking. Just zis Guy you know? 06:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation?

JzG, I am curious as to whether there is some mediation process between users. Every day I attempt to clear things up with Netscott, and every day he comes around to start things up again. It honestly seems to me as if he has a running list of people he'd like to drive off of Wikipedia, the last one was FairNBalanced, I defended FNB against a proposed indefinite ban, and now he's latched onto me. He acts as if he is the sole arbitrer of good faith, and by some arcane and indefeasable calculus, he's concluded (or at least claims) that I don't have it.Timothy Usher 11:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the various stages at dispute resolution, or you could ask the mediation cabal. FNB appears to me to be a problem user, though, so in this respect Netscott's actions may well be defensible. Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His prosecution of FNB is defensible, but that's not equivalent to saying FNB didn't deserve a defense, or that it's reasonable to continue to harrass me. Or is it?Timothy Usher 11:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really able to judge whether he is harassing you or simply pursuing a campaign against a certain POV in articles. I suggest mediation, or possibly a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 01:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks

I just want you to know that I find your remarks insulting and highly offensive. Your idea of "neutrality" and common decency clearly differs from mine. That does not mean you are right. Sussexman 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly good. Nothing pleases a rouge admin more than insulting and offending a POV-pusher intent on whitewashing an article on an extremist. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No good, quit ragging him. Fred Bauder 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never could resist an open goal :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fürsts of Schwarzenberg

I have cleaned up all the redirects and links to this article, either redirecting/linking to the general, the legitimate family article, or in some cases just tagging them for speedy as db-redirnone. Boy, this kid was thorough, screwed things up all over the place. Fan1967 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I very much appreciate your help. Little sod, I've indef-blocked the account. Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that supposed to be "His Lordship, the little sod"? ;-) Fan1967 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fbv65edel/Keep!

Hey, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I'm on vacation with sparse internet. If I could have the text for my personal use that would be great. I was actually going to bring it over to b:Muggle's Guide to Harry Potter because that Wikibook is seriously lacking, but… do you have to email it to me, or can you post it somewhere where it can then again be deleted after I retrieve the information? I don't think I will be able to respond to you again until 25 June, so apologies in advance as I roam Europe searching for wireless internet… Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to transwiki it with history (which is what's required) so if you can point me to a howto I will do that for you. Just zis Guy you know? 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

File:FA-22 Raptor.jpg

Thanks for voting!
Hello JzG/Archive 24, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello JzG, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews

So I want to understand clearly, did I advance the case on verifiability, and I now have to make the case for notability?

Bloger 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is aslippery and elusive animal, but what it means in effect is that a subject has achieved sufficient notice from reliable external sources to allow us to verify the facts as stated, and ensure the subject is covered neutrally. If the majority of references are to blogs, forums etc., then those are not reliable sources. What is needed is multiple, non-trivial references in mainstream sources - newspaper reports (not multiple syndications of a single story and not simple namechecks in a wider story about Zionism). Books written by neutral third parties and devoting significant space to this group as part of a scholarly treatment of the subject. That kind of thing. Otherwise we don't officially know (per WP:V) how the world views this group and so we can't comment on them. This is, of course, just my interpretation. Just zis Guy you know? 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, did you mean verifiability or notability?

Second, so in this case, I brought a widely read newspaper that wrote an article about the group, does it confirm It’s existence and its workings?

Bloger 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant notability. One mention is not enough for me; m ultiple non-trivial coverage in independent mainstream media is my benchmark. Otherwise we can do nothing to control the addition of biased articles on minor factions by their detractors or their supporters. Just zis Guy you know? 08:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLF

I don't know if you are in the UK or not but is it possible to get a British newspaper interested in this matter? If they were to print something it would quite quickly end the debate over whether the media can mention "spent" convictions. Homey 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage and the Neanderthal theory of autism

I won't remove the to-be article from my user page. I've stated the reasons on my talk page. I don't exactly approve of changing part of my iterpretations of the deletion of the article and the Asperger's self-identification article either. It is my opinion that this was vandalism and a coordinated attempt to silence the ideas. The requests to remove the content from my user page is certainly the same thing (an attempt to silence impopular ideas). --Rdos 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are this: wrong. It was community consensus, and you admin they are original research. Just zis Guy you know? 07:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've admitted that ever since it was deleted last year that it was original research. Every research starts as original research. You know, professional journals don't accept anything else than original research! That has nothing to do with the future article I have on my personal user page. --Rdos 07:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NOR is completely unambiguous. To call it a "future article" is begging the question, of course, but in the end the issue is one of civility: some editors find it offensive. Please remove it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't argued if WP:NOR is unambiguous or not. I think that WP:NOR is not really applicable to autism research. For instance, there is no pressure on Autistic culture, Autism community and articles like that to be peer-reviewed or notable. The Neanderthal theory is somewhere between a culture and autism research. I think that autism research actually cannot be done by non-autistics, and especially not without peer-review by autistics. I doubt that many of the popular autism theories would pass autistic peer-review. The Neanderthal theory have partly evolved in the autistic community, and has been on extensive review. --Rdos 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are this: wrong. WP:NOR applies to all content, no exceptions. And your suggestion that only the autistic can understand autism is distinctly problematic, not least since it appears to be founded in part on self-diagnosis, which is not considered the most reliable of tools. Just zis Guy you know? 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-diagnosis might be problematic for a long range of *real* diseases, but since autism is not a disease but a huge amount of *differences*, self-diagnosis is just as reliable as professional evaluation. This have clearly been shown in Aspie-quiz. People that have indicated self-diagnosis have similar scores as those that indicate professional diagnosis. This is not surprising because even professional diagnosis relies heavily on either self-awareness or parents that are aware of their child. The idea that autistics know more about themselves than non-autistic might be offensive to some neurotypicals, but it is nevertheless usually the case. --Rdos 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But I don't see any evidence to suggest that I should trust your opinion. Nor is it relevant. Just zis Guy you know? 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidences are here: [[5]]. If you don't trust my results, you are free to look through the source code for bugs or do your own evaluations. --Rdos 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close: I don't accept your method. And I don't accept your "interbreeding with neanderthals" idea, which is the offensive bit which you are about to remove. Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, you cannot make me remove it. It is not violating anything else than your own misconceptions about autistics and Neanderthals. --Rdos 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it myself then. Where's that Edit button? Ah yes... Just zis Guy you know? 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment interruption

Hi, JzG, Can I ask you to please put your new comments at the end of section? It is very difficult to follow chronologically people's comments if you insert them out of order. Thanks. Fresheneesz 07:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to interleave within threads if I believe it makes the argument easier to follow. I am a long-time Usenet user, it's a hard habit to break. Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep sigh:: but I would guess that many people like myself view the timing of comments as very important toward gauging the intent and personality of a user - especially to judge whether they're being inconsistant and hypocrytical. Fresheneesz 20:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we have a timestamp in the signature. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many users check the timestamp every time they read a long list of comments? I know I don't, and I doubt you or anyone else does either. Its simply lots easier to work with chronologically ordered comments. Fresheneesz 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I check timestamps. I also check diffs. And I've always preferred interleaved quoting. Chac'un a son gout, I say. Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge?

Exactly how many RfCs have been called to discuss your WP policy enforcement actions? Stephen B Streater 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh! You'll get me chucked off the rouge admin cabal! 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The true rouge admin never actually gets caught, whatever Tony S. may say about being the godfather of rouges... ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks... It's tuff trying to maintain order when it comes really hot issues. ---J.S (t|c) 18:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting comments on my talk page

First, I have nothing more to discuss with you, and second, your admin admirers have *protected* it so non-admins cannot make comments. Clearly an appauling strategy. --Rdos 11:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: you want the freedom to state your version of events, but you resent my taking the opportunity to put my side or link to other relevant discussions? Fascinating. Can I interest you in a block for disruption? Free offer to a good home, all you need to do is continue this nonsense. Alternatively you could try recognising that WP:NOT your soapbox and agree to let the matter drop, at which point your user page will be swiftly unprotected. Just zis Guy you know? 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good offer to me. Netscott 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a good offer. I would rather leave Wikipedia altogether than be oppressed by abusive admins. My life doesn't center on Wikipedia, and I'm getting really fed-up with it. I think I will list it as RfC instead. Fits my mood better for the moment. --Rdos 12:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I am in imminent danger of being chucked out of the rouge admin cabal due to my abysmal failure to attract a single RfC or RfAr. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Rdos carries on this way significantly further, and you don't block this person for disruption, I'll start the RfC on you myself! That way you get one either way. :) Would that make you feel better? ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's some catch, that catch-22... Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The good 'ole, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nice to see User:Samuel Blanning chiming in to support these admin actions. Netscott 14:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of my user page

Could you please reinstall the category listngs on my user page and remove your alterations to my comments (take your comments away along with my overstriked). I won't accept your other alterations anytime soon anyway. --Rdos 18:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your problem with the deletion that you don't agree with WP:OR or that you think this rule shouldn't have applied to your article? Stephen B Streater 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main trouble right now is how it was done. I will let User:JzG do the job of updating it for me for a while so he handles future disputes in a more civil manner. If he had been a little more diplomatic, I might have made changes that could have led to a resolution of the dispute, but he instead resorted to commanding me as an authority. I even pointed him to the ODD article, but to no avail. --Rdos 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, personalities are irrelevant to the discussions here. One of the tricks to enjoying Wikipedia is not to take anything personally. JzG handles a huge volume of edits and articles which do not adhere to policy. You're not the first to find his actions a bit direct, but the policies are there for a reason - to ensure consistency rather than completeness. You'll find that your case is one of the more clear cut ones, so it's worth having a look through some of the policy pages to find out why before spending a lot of energy fighting the wrong battles, or you'll just get jargon thrown at you and everybody will nod. You've been around a few months, so you've probably come across a lot of these. I suggest WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OWN. Also WP:NOTABILITY is quite interesting - it is just an opinion, not a policy (or even a guideline). If you can couch your response with reference to these pages, you'll get a good response. Stephen B Streater 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the categorisation and template. And if you want the article unlocked, all you have to do is undertake not to repost the deleted content. Seriously, that is all you have to do. Stephen calls me direct - well, yes. I do tend to speak my mind. Note, though, that I asked nicely first - and was not alone in doing so. I bear you no animosity whatsoever, but your userpage was offensive to some editors, and was a repeat of content deleted by overwhelming consensus and per policy. WP:NOT censored, of course, but that applies to verifiable and neutrally stated ocntent, not to user space; you may not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. As soon as you give an undertaking not to put the text back in, I for one will take you at your word and have no hesitation in unlocking the page. It really is that simple. Also, be aware that I took the (unusual) step of fixing and protecting the user page as an alternative to simply blocking you for disruption. Rightly or wrongly I thought it would be better for you to be allowed to continue editing, just not to reinsert this content in your user page. I have tried to apply the minimum level of privileged actions consistent with achieving the required result . Just zis Guy you know? 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of www.rdos.net

Was it you that blocked my site for wiki-links? If so, I suggest you point me to the proper location for opposing such a ridiculus action. --Rdos 06:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles do you want to include it in? Just zis Guy you know? 08:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I can include it wherever I want to (won't tell you how), but then it is not encouraged that webmasters include their own links. Other's might want to include it in Wikisource or at other locations. I frequently user the Aspie-quiz evaluations for argumentation on autism-related talk-pages. I also have the operating system on the same site, and some user might want to start an article about that. It is part of free operating system portals. --Rdos 15:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, didn't even know such a helpful spam prevention tool existed... that'll be a good one to recall. Netscott 16:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, and it seems to be some tool without policy or disucssions. Really made for abusive admins to use on non-compliant users or websites they dislike. I'm sure the "cabal" loves it! --Rdos 16:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least we can't seem to say you don't have a sense of humor Rdos. Netscott 16:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we can't. That would be uncivil. Just zis Guy you know? 19:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A truce?

OK, so how about a truce, and I'll leave you alone? If you remove the spam-block on rdos.net I'll promise to keep the Neanderthal theory out of Wikipedia until I have a journal citation to it? --Rdos 19:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles do you want it included in? Just zis Guy you know? 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it included in any article right now, but I will use it occassionally on talk-pages. I don't know about other users intentions. I cannot stop them from posting the link. --Rdos 20:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't need to post links in Talk pages. You can give the address, it just won't work as a link. Not really an issue, if it's relevant people will copy & paste into the url field. Are there any articles for which it would be counted a reliable source? Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already told you it could be above. The operating system would, based on similar systems, be notable enough for inclusion. Aspie-quiz was once part of the Asperger's self identification article, which was deleted without a lot of comments. It could potentially be recreated. Also, I aim to publish Aspie-quiz in a peer-reviewed journal sometime this or next year, and then it would count as a reliable source. --Rdos 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Let's wait until someone other than you wants to add your site. Just zis Guy you know? 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that? Nobody will know when somebody wants to create a link to it and fails due to spam-policy. Your policy clearly only affects others than myself, because I could easily create an alias to another domain and place the link from there instead. This would be disruptive for users only. --Rdos 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They will, don't worry. I get questions about other sites on the blocklist. Just zis Guy you know? 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will place information on this block on my user page, and probably describe it in some negative terms and point people to you for unblocking. I would also like to have a *working* link from my user page.. Never mind, I found the information about how to delist rdos.net myself. --Rdos 20:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I didn't know you were some kind of leader on Wikipedia... I'm going to have to change my tact with you... heh. Netscott 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly one of the sheeple, me. Just zis Guy you know? 20:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could be a cabal of one like ole User:Freakofnurture. Oh N0es the JzG cabal!! hehe Netscott 20:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you enjoy yourselves at least, without blocking websites and deleting peoples user pages ;-) --Rdos 06:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are the rouge admin cabal, we pwn Wikipedia - bwuhahahahahaa! Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving house

What!? Moving house?! ... and to a place with a real shed I bet! Leaving me the last man on earth without a shed... Aaaack! *shed envy* Pete.Hurd 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help is at hand! Subscribe to uk.rec.sheds for all your shedly needs. :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The little sod just won't give up

Seems our aspiring aristocrat just won't give up. This time he reinvented his dad as personal protector to the queen: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Andrew Roberts, with a bunch of titles that don't actually exist. - Fan1967 07:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewtooth

Some time ago, we coined the term Viewtooth for sending video over Bluetooth. Now I see it has 1440 Google hits. I'm tempted to include the word in the FORscene article, but have resisted temptation so far. Do you have a feel of WP:NEO threshhold for a word? It's catching on around 50 times faster than "MUG" ;-) Stephen B Streater 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include "coined the term..." in the FORscene article, that would be unexceptionable. A redirect may also be acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 20:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added a mention in the FORscene article, but will leave redirect for now. Stephen B Streater 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Thank you for your quick attention re: Cardinal Newman High School I don't understand why you can't speeedily delete an article about a non-notable highschool? Its ummm, non notable. Why does it matter whether it will "go down a treat" (per your edit summary) or not? Its non-notable. I am baffled. "...one of the top 50 Catholic high schools in the nation, according to the Catholic High School Honor Roll." Yeah and its probably one of the top five in southern California with the word Cardinal in its name. Many thanks. --Stroika 06:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because according to some people's religion, all schools are inherently notable. Most of us have long since given up trying to find any compromise since their idea of compromise was keep all schools (i.e. not actually a comprmoise as such). Just zis Guy you know? 08:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Life's too short for AfD.--Stroika 08:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) Actually life's not too short.--Stroika 09:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deafness

Hey JzG, are you on-line for long? I just performed a history merge on Deafness but the restored edits are still in limbo, so I can't revert the self-direct I created; and I really want to go to bed. Can you get this? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that will do, I've not removed the self-redirect from history (would take a while) but the article is visible again. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't remove the self-directs from the history. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian

I will cede to your better judgement here, since you seem to know something we don't. Hopefully all is OK and he will calm himself down. Badgerpatrol 09:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an email, sounds like RL is a bit harsh for him right now. I'm doing what I can. Just zis Guy you know? 09:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. He doesn't help himself even at the best of times, but if he's having problems, he's having problems and we ought to try and behave sympathetically (provided it actually is him making these edits, I do wonder sometimes). I'll bear it in mind in future however. All the best, Badgerpatrol 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to believe otherwise. I think we all have off days, and sometimes they stretch into off weeks. Anyway, I'll miantain dialogue. Just zis Guy you know? 10:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's 'off' period is stretching ever further- see this, a completely unprovoked (and quite disturbing) threat of violence. He is lucky to still be here; a 10 day block is a lot less than he deserves. This kind of behaviour really does go way, way over the line- regardless of ANY problems in his personal life. Badgerpatrol 08:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more [6] --Rdos 10:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian is currently blocked, he has personal issues right now which leave him with a very short fuse. Trolling him is unhelpful, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. I've avoided to confront him ever since you put up the notice on his talk page. This was quite unprovoked, even if I did respond to his post. I cannot refrain from making my point on various articles just because Brian also takes interest in them. --Rdos 10:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you did. But he is being trolled. I suggest you walk away. Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute- who's doing the trolling? The fact is, his recent behaviour has been completely indefensible. If he is having personal problems, then everyone is sympathetic- but that doesn't give him a licence to come on here and threaten people with violence, verbally abuse them, and generally behave in a completely obnoxious and arrogant manner- to people that are trying to help him, despite his behaviour. I'm certainly not having a go at you or suggesting that you're mistaken, but can you actually point to any specific instances of trolling or provocation? If he is being provoked, that at least mitigates his behaviour, even if it doesn't excuse it. Badgerpatrol 11:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are baiting him. I'm advising him to take some time out. There is no need to reply, or to be drawn. Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're wrong, your conduct has been exemplory, and him taking some time away from Wikipedia is obviously a good idea, but who is baiting him? Can you point to some diffs? From what I can see, any provocation has been minimal to non-existent. The fault here lies 100% with him. He is lucky still to be here- and since he has a number of socks anyway, a block on one account is hardly a preventitive measure. He has severely abused the good faith shown to him by many people here. Badgerpatrol 12:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it is: I know some of what Brian is going through. For my money he should not be engaging in any disputes right now. By the same token, I think it's best if people just let it lie. That's all I'm saying. I have email from him which, from the address, eads me to believe that this is the real Brian and not an impostor or account hijacker, and what I really want above all else is for him to calm down and get back to normal. I may have said more than I should already, it's Brian's business whether he wants to talk about it, but I do appeal for all involved to just realise that there is something else going on and leave him be for a while. We should maybe ask one of the admins who is a regular on the aspie articles to do some selective archiving. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone wants Brian to calm down and get back to normal. If his problems are that severe, then he shouldn't be here; no-one is forcing him to sit in front of his computer and abuse people, and I can't see how his current situation here on Wiki is in any way a catharsis for him. I am sympathetic to the situation, as I said before, and my last comment to his talk page was a short and measured response to the obnoxious rant he deposited on mine (I'm still not actually sure what specifically that was in aid of) and was intended to close my dialogue with him- which it did. I haven't responded to his subsequent disgraceful and violent rant, and I don't intend to. I do take exception to your insinuation that he is being trolled- if he is, it isn't by me, and if that was your suggestion, I'm quite disappointed. I stand by my behaviour towards him throughout our interaction. I and others have shown good faith to Brian and tried to cut him some slack, despite his at times obnoxious behaviour (which isn't just restricted to his recent outbursts)- and it has been well and truly chucked back in our faces. I wouldn't have been happy to see him indef blocked for his comment, but if he does it again, that is what will happen- and he will have very few if anyone sticking up for him or attempting to mitigate his behaviour. He has gone over the line, regardless of his circumstances. Badgerpatrol 12:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think I haven't told him that? Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't walk away from the Asperger's syndrome or other autistic-related articles. He will have to pick some other place to edit. I'm sure I've participated and contributed more to those articles than he has. --Rdos 11:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own those articles. RasputinAXP c 11:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never said I did. I was asked to walk away, and I won't because these articles are my main interest here. --Rdos 11:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was suggesting you walk away form the argument. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW- yes, I'm happy to see it removed, provided it's still available in some form for future reference if he fails to behave himself after his block expires. Badgerpatrol 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my engineer's poll

If you are interested in my summary of the poll results, readUser:Mbeychok/MRB's Survey of Wikipedian Engineers. - mbeychok 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA reasoning

My problem with Badlydrawnjeff's temperament and stance is partially derivative. Tony Sidaway and I have had sometimes polite wheel wars over deletion in the past (and sometimes not polite), and, although I used to never allow a user's philosophy to influence a vote on RFA, I've had to rethink that. It's a matter of degree, of course. My experience with badlydrawnjeff has been that his fundamental philosophy is, "If it doesn't hurt, let it in," and on DRV he's argued from the topic of articles from time to time. Those both concern me, as the only way we can keep from personal animosity, I think, is a cold, nearly blind application of the standards we have. Advertising, for example, is a deletion guideline failure, whether it's of a minor and good thing or a big and wicked thing. Trivia is not encyclopedic, whether it's popular trivia or unpopular trivia. When I phrased it as "include/exclude," I meant it literally. I've come to the conclusion that the real question is, "Should it be in if there are no objections?" vs. "Should it be out if it isn't helpful to readers/users?" I tend to think that we should approach the project with the latter question: what do readers need, not what do writers want. It's a question of emphasis on the contributor versus the reader. At the same time, it's not what will the reader want, but what will the reader need or be aided by. Therefore, even though readers want to read the latest gab about the latest TV show, it won't inform them or help them negotiate the world around them. It's sort of empty calories. Anyway, my own view was that bdj had been too enthusiastic a "defender of articles" (which bothers me by itself, because it invokes that old "deletionist" language -- that there are people like me who hate articles (despite all the ones I write) and are picking on them, and they need defenders to protect their tender flesh from our nasty claws). I don't think bdj has crossed the line particularly, but I think that it would be deleterious to have more unilateralism and warring and theatrical "defense" and "attack" on contributors. Geogre 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I agree re his inclusionist tendencies, we will need to agree to differ on how this affects fitness for adminship -the proof of the pudding will be in the eating I guess. If he abuses the tools I will be at the fornt of the lynch mob. I think several of us will take a close interest in his early actions, should he be promoted, and that is good. Hopefully he will pick an experienced admin to act as mentor. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His statement that he would avoid XfD's was cheering, but I've had a lot of trouble with... certain admins. Then again, I have my own cranky ideas about the "de-admin" thing, too. (I think we should be talking about demotion, not "de-sysopping," and I'd like to think that we could make demotion and repromotion automatic and away from votes. E.g. demotion would result in restoration automatically unless the ArbCom (not RFA voters) saw a repeat of whatever got the demotion. A second demotion would automatically repeal after a bit longer. A third, a bit longer still. A fourth would be the real "de-admin" procedure, with a reapplication to RFA if restoration is desired.) (Told you they were cranky.) (They're also unpassable, because, to be policy, they need either top-down fiat from Jimbo or approval in votes, and people are so afraid of "admin power grabs" that anything that says ArbCom gets to restore priviledges (even though it presently can anyway) would go down in flames.) If we had a more flexible and less devastating procedure for limiting admin wars, I'd never dream of opposing for suspicion or fear and would need to see demonstrated bad behavior. I'm sorry that I'm at the place I am. Geogre 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on the whole I agree with this. I thought long and hard before nominating, and in the end I decided that it was not about the things that Jeff would or would not delete, but about whether he would abuse the tools. If he wants to untag articles at CAT:CSD he can do that anyway. If he wants to close AfDs as keep he can do that, too. These do not require admin powers. But he could complete actions around page moves, delete obvious vandalism, lock articles he's watching which end up in edit wars, police some articles which are frankly of no interest to most admins (and hence creep into POV and unverifiability). If he wheel-wars, he'll be in trouble. Will he bite newbies? Probably not. Will he userfy trivia? Maybe, maybe not - more likely to do than than delete it, which is fine by me. In the end the danger of not deleting is less than the danger of deleting, so I don't think his inclusion stance makes a big difference. Plus, it's supposed to be no bog deal, and we're supposed to judge by edits not by our perosnal opinion of a user's politics (wikipolitics or Politics). I hope I have not done a Bad Thing. This may be an example of my Mary Poppins tendencies in action. I hope not. I'm disturbed that you are opposed to Jeff's adminship, since I routinely agree with everything you say, but my natural optimism comes to the fore here. I do wish there were an easy solution to admins (like me) who get angry and aggressive and punish tendentious editors beyond what is merited by the damage they cause. Perhaps the solution is admin peer-review of some sort. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against ArbCom being the courtroom for admin behavior, but ArbCom won't demote anyone for fear of the flood gates opening. I understand their hesitation. If demotion automatically reverted after X time, they might be freer to act. Anyway, I wouldn't have any fear of jeff deleting things. To put my cards on the table, my problem has come from an admin who undeletes things because he disagrees, and he does this without the use of DRV and in spite of an overwhelming AfD. I have asked him to use the process, but he says that admins don't have to, that DRV is for regular users and admins can just undelete whatever they want. That led to my pointing out that admins can also delete whatever they want, so we had a merry little wheel war. That is what I'm concerned about. I don't know that jeff would do it. I do know that the person who has been doing it likes to gather troops under the banner of "protecting articles" from their natural enemies, those hated "deletionists." The actions got a number of ArbCom folks saying that they thought he should have been de-adminned for his actions (and he's gotten drawn in front of them twice more since then), but they don't want to start the flood. That kind of thing, where my choice is to either enter into a "Nyah-nyah I deleted it" fit or a laborious process to really push for ArbCom action or tacitly support the idea that admins are exempt from process, has made me reluctant to suport anyone who invokes any of the "we must protect the authors" language. If we get good policies and follow them, then we can protect authors. All they have to do is learn our procedures, and then they'll be able to turn out keepers every time. If we keep and delete at whim, though, we're just an Internet forum with fatuous and self-important people demanding that everyone honor the A/V Club geeks. Geogre 03:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHERES MY RADIO!

I have scaled the Reichtag buliding wearing a spiderman outfit. The proof is in the picture!

I LIVE IN YOUR EYES. Cazoo.

Dfrg.msc 08:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:ReichstagClimb.jpg

Ergo!

I told you that you would be blocked for violating the policy Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. That's an indef-block right there! Just zis Guy you know? 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, and I was just thinking about doing that too! When did that policy take effect? lol Netscott 09:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shite!. LOL!!! Netscott 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments on the courtcase in public

agreed. dismissed.

I haven't gotten that deep with it yet, but this is my new favorite pet project. After doing the cite work and checking on things, (*yawn*), it was fairly apparent that the selected first article from the court action was not in fact the first article. I was simply too bored to care. :) Ste4k 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on the Kelly Roberti dispute. It really helps to get some support. Whoever this Blastphemy or Miranda (notice, not a registered user) is, he or she refuses to sign with the four tildes, despite being told to do so in clear terms. And now, a more serious thing, he/she is engaging in real personal abuse. But, again, it helps to not have to fight these battles alone. Being attacked doesn't feel so bad then. Much appreciated! Alan W 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks now for posting that abuse notice on the User Talk:Blastphemy page. He's deleted it (and now switched entirely to another account, Mirjay), but he's also deleted the abuse, and, in fact, everything on the Kelly Roberti talk page, including the abuse. I suppose that as long as he maintains this toned-down mode and doesn't break out into new blatant violations of anything or more abuse, I'm willing to let this rest. He's said other things to indicate that he completely disagrees with me about what I said; and I disagree with him. But so be it; we don't have to like each other. Again, I appreciate your help in defusing this whole incident. Alan W 22:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing off the attacks is fine as long as it doesn't obscure anything required for the history (which in this case I don't think it does). Hopefully a fresh start will clear the air here. Disagreement is fine as long as it remains civil, after all. I hope it stays calm. Just zis Guy you know? 07:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skybum and Me

JzG, on the Talk:ULTra_(PRT) page, you wrote:

"And ATE, you are right: I am nothing like a closed minded, arrogant, trigger-happy admin, else you and Skybum would be blocked..."

Might I ask on what grounds? I don't believe I've done anything to warrant anything but a short term block. I had some conflicts many months ago, and as for the personal attack on you, it was a mistake and I regret it. Do users get permanent bans for such small transgressions?

And even if you could get me banned, I certainly have seen nothing in Skybum's history to warrant a block. Not even close.

How can you make such a claim? Do you really believe that our actions have been so destructive that they would warrant an indefinite block, something that is reserved for only the worst of the worst vandals? If so, then go ahead and initiate the process; I have nothing to hide.

A Transportation Enthusiast 09:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a closed-minded arrogant trigger-happy admin need an excuse to block someone? Dear oh dear...

I accept that you regret what you said, thank you. Please be assured that my usual response to friction is levity - always use the irony detector on all comments :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed recently that anonymous "editors" like A.T.E are permitted to personally attack me[[7]]. I am no longer quoted in the Wikipedia PRT article and I no longer have interest in "editing" the Wikipedia PRT article. Unless someone wants to start a Wikipedia article on Ken Avidor that gives an accurate account of my views on transportation, I think he and his fellow PRT promoters should be advised to stop attacking me personally or misrepresenting what I have written.Avidor 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, did you bother reading the link? How is that a personal attack? Misrepresenting? Here is Avidor's exact quote: "In the case of PRT, the salesmen's claims are all we got. Frankly, I think used car salesmen are more believable than the stuff I've heard PRT proponents say. " How is what I said misrepresenting that? A Transportation Enthusiast 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you want to start playing the ball instead of the man is fine by me. Just zis Guy you know? 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would respond, but I haven't a clue what you're talking about. A Transportation Enthusiast 01:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Since there is no article on me in Wikipedia or quotes in the PRT article or the PRT Talk page, it makes little sense to keep bringing my name up. If you want to trash me, I suggest you start a blog about me like your friend David Gow [8].Blogs are free at Blogger.Avidor 12:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... if you are no longer partipating in Wikipedia, why do you keep posting messages? A Transportation Enthusiast 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I've never heard of Avidor before today, much less his new associations. I also did not remove any comments directed to him or about him that dated to times when he was contributing and thus able to respond for himself. I just think it's poor form to make (arguably) negative comments about a user who has chosen to leave, "because it forces him to either let the characterizations stand or to return against his wishes to defend himself", and I would have the same view about anyone else who has left the project." -Thatcher131[9]Avidor 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Award for You

File:Carbonrod00.JPG

For all of your hard work and perseverance, outstanding service to the Wiki and flying the banner of the Rouge Admins through thick and thin, I hereby award you the inaugural Inanimate Carbon Rod Award For Outstanding Achievment in the Field of Excellence. Bear the Rod proudly, and know that we appreciate you! RasputinAXP c 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BenH

Being new to this whole admin thing, I could use your opinion on the whole BenH thing. I really tried to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith and all that. Now, I do think that some folks are thinking that they "own" the articles, but the lack of citing sources, the inappropriate addition of stub tags when it's obviously not a stub, and his lack of dialogue on all the matters has started to wear a bit thin. What do you think should be done? I don't think a permanent ban (as some are suggesting) is anywhere close to the right solution, but I don't think that doing nothing is the right thing to do either. Sue Anne 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my convenience, linking BenH (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH.

Here comes the Spiderman!

(Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to promote their cause. This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia."

File:ReichstagClimb.jpg

You may not do this.
Nor on Tower bridge either.

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay!

Thats what I love about this Wonderful, wonderful website.

Next stop: The Kremlin!

Thankyou!

Regarding the closing of AfD on Gary Renard

Please see my comments there regarding your suggestion and if this AfD can be closed to consensus I can begin working on the merge. I think it's a good idea. I recently performed a similar merge for what appears to be your reasons on the page Marianne Williamson. If you wouldn't mind adding that to your watch list, I have already seen reasons for it to be monitored by a neutral source. Thanks. Ste4k 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed since that you voted on that AfD, but I also spoke with tangotango and he advised to wait a full 5 days. If you know of anyone with some slave labor type jobs to do, let me know so I can occupy myself in the interim. It has been advised by a neutral party that I may be experiencing wiki-stress. I thought it was cute, but just the same, I could use a long list of easy but boring repetitive tasks to do (those are my favorite). I appreciate your comments and help. Ste4k 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I am so slow! :) I just saw the closure and will begin the merge. Thanks. Ste4k 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not make any links here to avoid reverses. I finished this merge and for the book found one reliable secondary and one reliable primary that named the original publisher. In any case, the merge is complete. I spent most of time researching everywhere I know, but found only article. He does appear to be able to meet WP:BIO in that gray area and I did my best to include that information especially. I also included one line about Course of Miracles since I am positive that it would be very upsetting to them if something wasn't included. It was a statement from Publisher's Weekly which is probably better than any directly related source. I would appreciate your comments on it, specifically anything it needs doing, and I'll make it worth my time to get those tasks done.

On the second subject, the publisher for that book (found out today actually it's a set of three) does not appear to be of a significant volume to be considered reputible itself. The main question that cannot therefore be verified in writing or anywhere else is if the words in the books are the same as the words that the lady wrote down in the first place. I am just going to walk away from it for awhile, there aren't any sources for it whatsoever in my opinion. I appreciate your backing up policy, if for no other reason than I didn't feel alone believing in it. Ste4k 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started from scratch, dug up three (rather than two) of the Court case files and wrote this article. It is all completely from the court case, tells the whole story, and guess what? All of those groups ARE the same people, it explains it, and none of them have rights to anything about the book anymore. Imagine that! Wow, what a surprise. The article doesn't even coin the acronym ACIM. Anyhow, I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a once over, make some comments, etc., but basically, this one article could replace about six to eight others that are all over [Category:A_Course_In_Miracles ]. Most of them have AfD's now that want a merge, but they don't really say where, specifically. ;) And there are two others, specifically the Endeavor Academy and the guy who runs it, that I would AfD in a heartbeat but I don't want to have anymore of the AGF accusations. Just say the word, and I'll do whatever you think needs doing. :) Ste4k 12:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness

If you are to make massive deletions from this article, some explanations in talk would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, forgive me, Jossi, for I have been wound up by the POV pushers ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCTRDAS

The Surreal Barnstar

For your effort to keep the Reichstag Spiderman-free, I award you this barnstar after laughing my arse off. Zoz (t) 14:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the sentiments in this barnstar and will note User:Dfrg.msc for honorable mention. :-) Netscott 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it back in if you agree it wasn't POV.

Marianne Williamson is an internationally acclaimed author

talented came from her singing career which I thought would probably be better left as one word.

Also, per checking that facts during the rewrite, this lady turned out to be a lot bigger than I had ever imagined. From the article it replaced, the best I could imagine was some talk show guest on Oprah. Nelson Mandelah knows about this lady. ( ! ) Ste4k 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure she's significant. But stick to the facts. And really, I despise the hyperbole that some of these sources come up with - tabloid headlines make poor biographical material. Comparisons to legendary contemporary figures are very often made in the case of people who, five minutes later, are forgotten. There are any number of New Elvises, but only one Elvis, if you see what I mean. Just zis Guy you know? 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reichstag climbing patrol here

Thanks for adding the pertaining userbox to my userpage; it is much appreciated...now I'll be spending more time patrolling the Reichstag then wiki. Cheers. :)))) Lectonar 07:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I only did it once and that was before the (Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman) ruling.

this is great! Its like bloody Mensa at drinking hour in here! Steven Hawking is buying the next round! Yeah!

Dfrg.msc 08:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mediation process

I strongly suggest that you join this mediation process. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have signed on the request as it asked. I am currently gathering the facts for an easy to follow presentation. Is there something that I should be doing more with the mediation? Ste4k 08:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Document the issues, neutrally and with diffs and specifics, and do not be tempted to engage in any kind of personalisation of the issue. Ignore all trolling and do not troll yourself. Engage with the mediators and allow for the existence of your own subconscious bias. Just zis Guy you know? 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the questions listed. Am I understanding correctly that you and Ohta are the mediators? Ste4k 11:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mediator, but I will do what I can to help. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my dogs breath smells of contempt

Can i join your order of rogue admin. Can you rig the admin election so i get in?

Cheese please?

PS lose weight now ask me how!

krill

F 22 09:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of mfd nom

This edit removed my nomination from MfD. I assume it wasn't deliberate but please take care. --A Y Arktos\^talk 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Careless. Sorry about that. I wanted to separate out dfrg.msc's nonsense fomr the debate, obviously. Just zis Guy you know? 12:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson (Anglican bishop)

Thanks for doing that. Cheers --Pak21 12:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfM for Authorship of A Course in Miracles

I noticed that you added another proposed issue to the RfM for The Great Authorship of A Course in Miracles Kerfluffle. It's a worthwhile issue, but is it appropriate to modify an RfM after the parties have already agreed to it? It certainly seems appropriate to suggest additional issues to the parties involved, but actually modifying the RfM at that point seems like something that might best be left to the parties and the mediator. (And I admit to being a bit surprised that the parties agreed to the RfM as it was. :) ) Kickaha Ota 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homework

Please take the trouble to identify precisely what problems exist within these articles, and detail what needs to be done to fix thewm, in neutral terms. Avoid baiting, or being baited by, Andrew or anyone else. If the content cannot be sourced and verified it will eventually be removed, but there is no deadline. I am as vehemently opposed to the abuse of Wikipedia to promote commerical enterprises as anyone, but I don't really have time to research this in depth. Remember: reliable secondary sources independent of the movement are what is needed, for both support and criticism. Just zis Guy you know? 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did my homework, before, but did it again and found some more. Walled Garden? More like a snake pit.

Please see text near the bottom here: The thick part has many links. Ste4k 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrong version

I think that you have protected the wrong version of Falkland Islands. Moreover, you participated in the edit warring before protecting it. That means you were personally involved in the matter. Please, unprotect the page or be de-sysopped. ackoz 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an evil rouge admin, this is my stock-in-trade. Which version do you consider best reflects consensus? Just zis Guy you know? 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I have already listed you on the problem users page. Next time, just think what you are doing before you do it. ackoz

15:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How exciting :-) I've seen the actual Argentine flag which flew over the British terrotories BTW :-) Stephen B Streater 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what is the next step in the wrong version policy? ackoz

15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at m:The Wrong Version for a start. Stephen B Streater 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) I tried to follow it but then I lost it. Thx, contacting Jimbo right away. ackoz 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember the bit about rambling. I suggest a copy & paste of the entire talk archive from the article as a staring point, but it will need working up from there... Just zis Guy you know? 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support for my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad I meet your criteria. Most of all, I'm glad you took the time to evaluate my candidacy, as I believe that's what keeps RfA running smoothly, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Please let me know at my talk page if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BenH

Well, it appears he made another edit without replying to the RfC or the comments on his talk page. Just wanted to let you know. —Whomp [T] [C] 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCTRDAS image up for deletion

Hello JzG, unfortunately it appears that the "policy" image may go the way of the Dodo. I informed Dfrg.msc about it... but from looking at his talk page I have a sneaking suspicion that he doesn't know how the system works. Not sure what can be done about this... but I thought you should be aware of the situation. Take it easy. Netscott 01:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone else with Photoshop skills will step up to the plate. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly only one course of action open to us ;-) Stephen B Streater 09:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here (but this seems as ggod as place as any to explain) - there are plenty of images on Reichstag (building) which can be photoshopped for those who are passionate about illustrating to wikipedians what that which they shouldn't do looks like. Surely one Wikipedian can dust off his costume and be allowed to pose so as to generate the second component of the illustration. Regards - your crabby Australian --A Y Arktos\^talk 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On a related note. Hmmm... Netscott 16:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good deal. ;-) Netscott 17:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Star shines upon...

File:Blue-star.gif

...dear Guy,
while I have not been granted yet the pleasure of talking to you yet, yours is one of those names that instantly make me smile, and read your thoughts with admiration.
Your humour, your hard work and your honesty are a true inspiration and a gift, for which I wish to express my wholehearted gratitude.
Hoping to see you around for a long, long time,
a big hug,
Phaedriel

re: ACIM

Since you are looking into this, I have the following suggestion:

split the main article into book and movement

I have written an article that is factual based on the court records that includes only information about the book and is written NPOV. A Course in Miracles (book)

merge the various factions into the movement article

If the factions are based on opinion about the court case, there is another AfD that I have put up regarding that, which is receiving little attention and trying to support WP:SCHOOL which was refused as a guideling. Please see, this discussion .

merge the authors into the book article

Already done. A Course in Miracles (book)

Good, but it needs a machete taken to it. Once the unverifiable and uncritical is removed (we shouldn't say, for example, that Schucman actually was receiving this voice, only that she said she was; there would be more than adequate grounds for scepticism of both the spirit voice and most especially its identity. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You remarked that you thought it was uncritical. (???) All of it came from the court records which were pretty dry and simply NPOV. Did I misunderstand? The article says that "she said it was", if it doesn't, then, someone has modified that. I quoted the court records in that regard. Ste4k 14:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me, but there is much more of the same ilk. Just zis Guy you know? 14:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move most discusison of the court case into authorship

Already done. A Course in Miracles (book) the court case itself is neither highly publicized, nor has it any usefulness. I really don't understand why anyone believes it's important except that they might be misunderstanding that unless they claim it is important that the court documents as a resource would be nullified. It appears to be smoke and wishy-washy understanding at best.

This should leave three or four decent-sized articles, once the cruft and unverifiable / uncited commentary is pruned out. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to edit anything in either of the articles about the book has only led to anonymous/vandal/edit warring. Trying to establish any sort of mutual understanding in discussion has led to "We have more editors than you" sorts of reasoning. Ste4k 11:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I just looked and the new article that merges is getting an AfD. 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one other thing about this court stuff. It is actually "unremarkable". Also, it points out that the book is no longer in print. It's no longer even notable. There is no longer any publisher involved. The books that were printed are history. Penguin by the way, is also known to have a history of court action regarding books, so this case, besides having absolutely zero impact on society, is also simply a normal kind of affair with Penguin. JFYI. Ste4k 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the move on Empire of Atlantium.

I am not a sysop because I haven't got enough life bandwidth to go RC or CVU (other than what wanders through pages I edit and watch) and only end up needing to ask an admin for help with something once a month or so these days. It would be moderately useful, but hasn't bugged me enough to be necessary. And there are still people out there who claim to oppose any nominee with less than 2,500 edits, and I am only just about to break 2k... I don't know, if people think I'd be doing useful stuff with it with my bandwidth, I'd go for it, but I can't commit to being a super-active janitor. Georgewilliamherbert 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What admins are supposed to do

I'm not entirely clear what the function of an admin is - but I thought it was to be balanced and fair. What part have I got wrong? SilkTork 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bit where you expect us not to have opinions. We all have opinions. We should keep clear of using our Super Powers (TM) in areas where our opinions are strongest. I don't see any reason to believe that Jeff would be a bad admin; he would not, for example, delete articles tagged incorrectly for speedy - that is a good thing. Just zis Guy you know? 14:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect any admin not to have opinions. But I do expect an admin to have a history of not pushing their opinions onto others. When I wrote "The people with an opinion" I meant those with a strong opinion who like to use it. I didn't actually mean mindless jelly babies! SilkTork 15:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Satchel Cohen - do it, Guy! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page disguised as a bio.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson After nominating these two pages for deletion, some questions were asked by another admin. I researched deeper into these articles and found that they are basically attack pages in disguise as a bio. I have spoken to one other admin in IRC. But, I thought I should let you know what's up. The admin who initially was asking questions is named Will Beback. I left him a note on his page as well, and also there is some discussion in talk pages of the article and the AfD. Ste4k 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association of British Drivers

Hey -- saw your note on WP:AN, and I looked into this a bit. After doing some brief searching, I found a couple of articles criticizing the ABD for distorting facts to their benefit. See [10] and [11] (pdf), in addition to the source about membership claims that's already there. I don't know if sources can be found for all the criticism that was here before, but if not, I think these sources still give a general picture. We have to strike a balance between responsibly describing the criticism and yet not doing investigative reporting. I think if there's an ABD central claim that a primary source directly and obviously refutes, that could be included without a secondary source. This is sort of what that big table on car ownership rates is doing. But picking off individual claims in order to paint a general picture of the organization is too much OR for my taste. Anyway. Condolences about your sister, and thanks for your support vote in my RFA. Mango juice^talk 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DeFacto just removed the tables as bulky... Ah well. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Wapnick

If you have a moment, I'd appreciate you reviewing my comment at the bottom of this AfD. Thanks. Ste4k 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mango juice^talk 21:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sharp

I see that you were the admin responsible for closing the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sharp debate. I happened to note that the Michael Sharp article has been recreated and I don't think this has gone through any sort of undeletion process. I proded the article but the tag has been removed by user:Ginar who had created the original article. So I thought I would just relist it for AfD but of course I can't because I'm not supposed to edit the previous AfD debate! Anyways, I think it's a pretty clear cut of speedy delete. If not, please let me know how to proceed to re-nominate for deletion. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 02:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't be speedy deleted after it was recreated. It was recreated by an specialist on occult/spiritual authors user:Boboroshi whereas user:Pascal.Tesson is a mathematician and is probably just expressing a personal bias against. Also the prod said if you disagreed with the prod for any request then the article would remain. user:Boboroshi needs to provide some sort of justification for wanting the article deleted especially since its been recreated by a specialist in the field Ginar

Jeez, thx for assuming good faith. As I said above I'm open to submitting this to the usual AfD process, except I can't because there already is an existing debate. Pascal.Tesson 02:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies fellow Canuck. My point, the article was recreated by someone who specializes in editing occult literature. Because of that I think its worthwhile assuming good faith on the part of the person who recreated. Also, the prod said if you disagree for any reason, remove the prod. My sense, and I could be wrong, is that the recreation of an article tends to add weight to the notion that the article deserves to be in wikepedia. I know I read that somewhere but can't remember where. Ginar 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy criterion A3 applies. This was a single sentence with an email address and numerous weblinks. A genuine article would arguably be OK, but this was not one, to my mind. Just zis Guy you know? 09:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus On Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think Cyde's block was very fair, as I checked the disruption clause and it actaully states that users will usually be warned before being blocked, so why wasn't I, given that I am an established user. Myrtone

I don't really know what you are talking about. This was a block for disruption which has expired. Just zis Guy you know? 09:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flemish and Dutch

You reverted my revert on The Game (game) with the edit summary Actually, Flemish is not Dutch. There are dialectic differences. Tell a Fleming that he is Dutch and see how far it gets you :-). Of course Flemings are not Dutch any more than Austrians are German or Americans are English, but I'd maintain that they speak Dutch. To quote from Flemish (linguistics):

[The term 'Flemish'] is used to describe certain non-standardized dialects spoken in Flanders, and sometimes to Dutch as spoken in Belgium. The latter usage, though widespread, is not considered correct by linguists: boundaries between areas of distinct groups of historical Dutch dialects do not coincide with the national borders. [...] In Belgium the official languages according to the constitution are French, German and Dutch.

Assuming the above is correct (and if you don't think it is, perhaps you should say so), would you be amenable to reverting it back again? Even if it is correct to call the dialects in question Flemish, I'd be almost certain (with the caveat that I don't speak Dutch myself) that the language of De Morgen is indistinguishable from that of a paper printed in the Netherlands. -- Blisco 19:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll read later in the same article that it makes the point several times that there are dialectic differences; the accents are also different. I have had several not always entirely sober Flemings describe to me in detail the nuances of this, not to mention the fact that a Fleming will regard his language being described as Dutch as a form of cultural imperialism. De Morgen is also a Flemish paper, not a Dutch one. But let's not go the Moldovan route ;-) To be sure I am not that fussed, but I would say that according to the Flemish linguistics article it is not fair to say that Flemish and Dutch are unambiguously equivalent. What they actually speak, of course is Flemish Dutch (like American English or British English), but they would undoubtedly self-describe it as Vlaams. Just zis Guy you know? 19:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - sounds very similar to Valencian (and there was I thinking that the Flemish were more realistic than the Valencians). However, in this specific context "Dutch" has to be the most appropriate label: in effect it's saying "this source is in Dutch: you need to be able to understand Dutch in order to read the article." So whatever the Flemish speak (and I still maintain that from a descriptivist point of view it is Dutch, just as the Valencians speak Catalan, even if nationalism makes them say they don't), labelling the source as "Flemish" is only confusing matters, so I've taken the liberty of reverting it back. -- Blisco 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands

Thanks for your good work keeping an eye on it. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I have just reverted our old friend Gibraltarian. It didn't take long for him to come back on the scene. Vilĉjo 12:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:HayMeadows

You nominated a pair of articles by User:HayMeadows to AFD today with an "is there an echo here"? type comment on the second.

http://www.haymeadows.com/links/seo-link-exchange.htm Demonstrates that there is a company by that name involved in search engine optimization. One of the two companies you AFD nominated is specifically listed as an SEO client. I'm not sure what more to do, so I'm alerting you. GRBerry 03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Feedyourfeet

It now seems Feedyourfeet (talk · contribs) is insisstent on blanking part of their talk page. So, it would be pointless of me to continue to revert. So, perhaps, as an admin, you could decide either a) let-it-be or b) not allow it. This is really a grey area for me, as this user hasn't done anything really horrible. But, the blanked comments were, IMO, about a item worth keeping for future reference (e.g. PRODing with Edit Summaries). --Rob 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide a policy i will be happy to abide by it. Other wise i dont see how i am breaking any rules. Feedyourfeet 07:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be dealing with this (thank you) I thought I'd add some more... Feedyourfeet has opened a Request for comment although it hasn't been fully completed as of this message. The editor has also posted a statement on their user page (perhaps as part of the RfC?). I am concerned that we are unable to rebut some of the comments on this "Statement" page (in part because if I rebut them on the talk page, they will likely be blanked!). Just thought I'd keep you up to date! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 08:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why the lynch mob about all this. As i have said before if somebody could please back up why i can not do this with wikipedia policy. PageantUpdater, If you wish to comment on my statement then please do. It will not be deleted intil i have responsed to them on your talkpage. Feedyourfeet 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's disruptive, and that's against policy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you can do about his copying a personal message to me from my talk page (yes it was related to him, but it has personal details relating to me and was a message to me from Blnguyen) that he has put at the top of his talk page? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish he would just out and say what his problem is. Just zis Guy you know? 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help me learn, Where does it say archive must be linked? Thanks, I'm trying to find my way around all the "inside" infomation. Feedyourfeet 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal practice. Like I said above, it helps people to protect you if you are being trolled, it helps to maintain the integirty of discussions on content which ramble across the project, and it helps to demonstrate good faith. It's really not worth having a war over - just link the archive and archive anything you don't want to address straight away. And if it's blatant trolling (like PageantUpdater's last) there is no need to archive as long as you include something like WP:RPA in the edit summary. There is a low tolerance for personal attack on WP, so it's worth your while to play nice so that those who are determined to troll become the focus of administrator attention, rather than you. Wikilawyering tends to have the opposite effect, drawing attantion to you and establishing a (likely unwarranted) reputation as a problem editor. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ACIM (book) Afd discussion resumed

Dear JzG,
In case you may be interested, the nomination for deletion of the A Course In Miracles (book) article, in which you placed a comment, has been resumed by myself. The nomination had been closed after only two days, and thus instead of submitting a new nomination, I have reopened the old discussion. Thanks for your interest and comment(s) on this discussion thus far.

-Scott P. 11:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you and condolences

Hi there:

I just came to your talk page to thank you for your support of my RfA, and I came across your tragedy. I am so sorry; I cannot imagine what I would do if something similar happened to me. I hope that you and your family are doing alright and that your grief is becoming bearable.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to stop now.

Wikipedia is not a playground, your nonsensical edits to article space should now stop. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specificaly what are you refering to?

Dfrg.msc 06:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Catholic POV fork?

I would appreciate it if you could weigh in on the recent changes to mystical experience. It appears Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) has simply imported Catholic Encyclopedia text with little to no formatting. That being problematic in itself, I don't consider that the main issue (or reason enough to revert). However, there is already an article on mysticism in general, then an article on Christian mysticism. Maybe there is enough information about Roman Catholic mysticism to warrent its own article, but at the very least, the name of the article should be changed. It seems very biased the the phrase "mystical experience" should point to an article about Catholic mysticism instead of mysticism in general. What do you think?--Andrew c 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. And it should stay that way. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satchel Cohen hoaxer communication

FYI, I've received this [12] and have replied on Anchor434's talk page. Tyrenius 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted there too. Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-)

That's pretty funny... it's good to have a link to that case leading from that discussion. Don't let me be a bad influence on you now and start going around calling people "idiots". LOL!. (→Netscott) 15:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]