User talk:JzG/Archive 24

Good work on User:Socafan

I might not have pushed so hard, but you were clearly right, and the Socafan was clearly in the wrong. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

I see you've been down this road before. Talk:Asperger syndrome#What the autistic community feels about the medicalized article I'm somewhat new to Wiki myself: is it time for an ArbCom, would that help considering the extensive history, and if so, how does one do that? Sandy 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God knows. It's a thorny problem - the reliable secondary sources here are medical, so those who are in what might be termed denial of the medical interpretation simply don't make it into the medical journals. It might be worth floating it around the mailing list (WikiEN-l) or the admin noticeboard; I freely confess to be well out of my depth with that one! Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Crossmr and LiveJournal

Please look at the edit record with regard to Crossmr and LiveJournal: it appears that he is (ab)using Wikipedia rules to systematically remove all material which places LiveJournal management in a bad light regardless of the facts: for example, multiple LJ users' accounts of identical actions by the LJ Abuse Team are removed "because LiveJournals are weblogs and Jimbo Wales has decreed that these are unacceptable as sources" (quasi-quote). OTOH, he allows LJ management statements to appear unchallenged because LJ management speaking for itself is "an official source." The net effect is that the article POV in favor of LJ management.

He does this with other material in the article as well. In another example, he has repetedly censored the fact that some LJ users abbreviate the phrase "Friend-list" as "flist", even though a casual LJ user will see the neologism repeatedly in use.

A quick scan through the record will show many similar removals and reverts of factual information he just plainly doesn't want to appear in the article, all under the guise of following WP guidelines, following their letter but not their spirit.

We have disagreed in the past, but you strike me as basically a fair man. I realize I can be hot-headed when information which I personally know to be true is reverted, and have a tendency to personalize, so I withdrew myself from arguing with him about this several days ago. Your advice and perhaps intervention would be appreciated.

Davidkevin 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your accusation that I'm abusing the rules a bit of a personal attack. Just because you want to include material you can't source properly is no reason to start accusing me of abusing the rules. Perhaps you need to re-read WP:OR, WP:V and several of the other policies on including content in wikipedia again, but we don't relax the rules just because you think the content should be included, especially on policies that are the cornerstone of wikipedia. Schmucky was able to go out and find sources for the breastfeeding material, as such, it remains. Its not a complicated process. If you want to include a theory, put forth an original idea, define a term, introduce an argument (like a criticism), or several of the other things on this list WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F You need to bring a citation. If you cannot, its original research and cannot be kept in the article. The policy cannot be misinterpreted as it clearly states These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. So while you, or I, or a dozen of us may agree that some term means something, without a citation it fails the original research test and must be excluded. The complimentary policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth also has a very clear definition of what may be included. This is also a non-negotiable policy. The first paragraph very clearly defines the goal of this encyclopedia and what you wanted to include flew in the face of that. This spells it out very clearly The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. These are not just good ideas, these are binding policies for inclusion of content.--Crossmr 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's extraordinarily tacky to attempt to start an argument in someone's User Talk page, but since you have misinterpreted my request for review as a besmirchment, I will reply here this one time. I don't presume to speak for him, but I would request that this not occur again in JzG's User Talk page.

I would be more inclined to believe you if these policies were enforced as stringently elsewhere as you enforce them in this one particular article, and if it didn't appear that your pattern of these deletions enforce a particular point of view.

However, rather than make the mistake of claiming my perception is an objective fact, I have asked JzG to please review the LiveJournal edit record.

If you want to personalize this review request into a personal attack upon you I cannot stop you from doing so, but that is not my intent. My intent is that facts not be disincluded for capricious, arbitrary, or rules-abusive reasons. An unbiased administrative review will help in this regard, I believe.

I am trying very hard (JzG knows with what a temper I can sometimes express myself) to not be "personally attack-ive", as it were. Looking at what I wrote above, I guess I could still have been better at it, and I'm sorry for that. However the issues are valid ones over which to be concerned, it seems to me, which is why I'm asking someone else to look at the record.

I await JzG's review at his convenience, or if he is not able, I would hope he can request someone of equal disinterest to do it instead.

Davidkevin 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all an argument, just ensuring he receives both sides of whats going on. Your tone was accusatory and very negative in regards to your perception of my behaviour.--Crossmr 01:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is somewhat ambiguous here. It allows the use of blogs as primary sources when discussing their subject but in this case that woudl depend on whether you consider the subject to be LJ or the individual LJ users. Either interpretation is valid, and if there are a significant number I would be inclined to allow it with some care given to the wording. I'd also be inclined to keep it very short, as there is no evidence presented that this event was considered significant by anyone other than the livejournallers themselves. But that is just my personal view; as always, secondary sources are preferred. It would be much better to find coverage of this story in one of the tech journals and say "according to s--and-so" where so-and-so is a source of known authority, and most importantly it would allow us to have a secondary source for the purported imnportance of the events, which is the real issue for me. Have any of the notable web-watchers covered this in sufficient detail to be helpful? Just zis Guy you know? 12:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case its seemingly used to support criticism about Livejournal and to support a definition of flist. I don't believe anyone's written a blog entry about what they feel flist means, so that usage is definitely out. I'd also mention that RS was recently changed by someone trying to push an agenda for inclusion of certain content in a couple of articles based wholely on unreliable usenet posts. Previous to this it read that blogs were never usable unless the person was a well known researcher or journalist. I think trying to source blog opinion on LJ is a bit pointless. You have no way of knowing if they're in the significant majority (unless you can find some credible sources), so simply saying "xx livejournal user said this" doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion because really, why is that person's opinion encyclopedic? There are hundreds of thousands of users, we could make the article pretty long sourcing each of their opinions.--Crossmr 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggets mediation. I really don't have the time to get into another content dispute right now, and the arguments are detailed. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

Thank you for the "Rouge Admin" thingy. Please be aware that I do not use userboxes, nor am I particularly enamored of the sentiment implied by that one. I realize you meant well; however, I have removed it. DS 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge is as rouge does :-) 12:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help with this though...

I meant to move a page this morning List of tallest structures in Paris => List of tallest structures in the Paris region) and almost made a mistake - I cut and pasted the article content from one page to another (where there was once a redirect back to the original page) and saved it. I should have used the 'move tab' - I did not know that it was possible to move 'over' a redirect but caught this in time by some 'in doubt' last-minute reading. - and my error gave the page I wanted to move to a history, which made it impossible to complete the move. Could you somehow efface my 'history' error and make the move possible once again?

Thank you, regards,

THEPROMENADER 08:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex move, I will do it when I get a minute. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I had no idea it would be hard to fix - apologies. No hurry at all, as the move has been temporarily 'waylaid' through some creative juggling. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. THEPROMENADER 13:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to fix. I have to delete the redirect, move, then undelete to restore and merge the deleted history. It's a mildly tedious action but not an especially arduous one. Just zis Guy you know? 13:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second - perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking that you clear the history of the List of tallest structures in the Paris region - leaving the redirect there - but 'freeing' the namespace for an eventual future move. If a page has a history, one can't move over it - and the only history the List of tallest structures in the Paris region page has is my 'paste' error, so it would seem alright just to just eliminate this without worrying about special treatment. Or did I miss something? Anyhow, thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Might work, but doesn't matter too much if not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! Sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overreaction

I think you need to actually look at the edit history of the Religious life. It was never pointed toward Religious order. Your tone is really over the top here. Vaquero100 19:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone who writes this:

I wonder which hoary old argument has just been revived? Could it perhaps be the perenial demand by the Papists to move their article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church? I must wander along and have a look - maybe there will be a new argument this time. Yes, yes, I know - the triumph of hope over experience... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps should not be so quick to judge. Your edits have a clear bias. I have not seen any evidence that you are willing to engage in a discussion of Catholic naming issues from the perspective of WP conventions and policies. This is problematic for an administrator who can enforce his bias with impunity. If you would like to have a rational discussion, I am more than open to it. But threats will not help the situation. You might also want to read this article: Papist Vaquero100 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to view everything through the filter of how closely it matches your own agenda, I have little doubt that you would never perceive any position other than your own as neutral. This is known locally as MPOV. For your information I have taken part in these discussions some while back. As far as I'm concerned the issue is settled long since, notwithstanding the occasional rehashing of the same arguments. Of course I, as an Anglo-Catholic, have a bias as well. The difference is that I am open about it and do my best to discount it.

You are right that the redirect was not to religious order. I aoplogise. On the toher hand, it should have been. To point it to a Catholic-specific article in the first place was a failure of WP:NPOV. Your user page makes it quite plain that you are waging a POV-pushing campaign. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I should have directed "religious life" to "religious order." It was a thoughtless error on my part but not with malicious intent. And I have no argument with the present redirect. Your anti-Catholic commentary suggests that you have a bias regarding issues I edit on. When Anglicans and others move an article without discussion, administrators look the other way. If I move it back because there was no due process, I get threats. If you are going to have a role in Catholic related articles (which your Papist comments to me suggests you shold not), then you and other administrators should be more even handed. Also, it would show good faith on your part if you would actually demonstrate in your commentary a familiarity with CC vs. RCC. The arguments have become much better developed than they were in March. The March discussion was not argued from a WP standpoint but a theological one. The arguments on the page just sited are not a rehash. However, it appears that you are comfortable hiding behind "an old conversation" because it suits you. This kind of intransigence among WP administrators will be WP's undoing in the long run. How is it possible for 17 people last March to decide with authority and finality something so obviously controversial. This is irrational.

It is also a convenience for you to label me as one who cannot possibly see another side of an argument. This of course works both ways. You and your fellows have shown nothing but disdain for rational discourse. You almost appear to be afraid of it. There really IS a serious problem when administrators can use terms like "Papist" when they talk to one another and no one says anything. Apparently that is just fine. Apparently it is also just fine when it is brought to your attention on your talk page. If you are going to remain an administrator you ought to have a more professional way of handling things, including recusing yourself from editing topics which arrouse some layers of bigotry within you. Vaquero100 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FFS, calm down. It's only a website, you are taking this way too seriously. Intransigence? Nonsense. Like I said, the discussion has been done to death; you are wading in to a long-settled compromise and asserting your particular prejudices. You appear to believe that only your POV is neutral - read m:MPOV to see how the community views this kind of thinking. As I said before, people whyo come to WP to "right great wrongs" tend to be problematic, because when their belief clashes with policy they tend to assume that it is their belief which must prevail. A look through the Arbcom archives will show you any number of examples. Just zis Guy you know? 11:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case will be filed

As you pretend to own anohter user's talk page, abuse your admin power to violate the 3 revert rule in order to push you POV, make derogatory comments, and as I see above not just concerning me and the French, you removed a POV-tag in spite of an obviously ongoing dispute and blocked me in spite of a conflict of interest I file an arbitration case. Socafan 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you get round to this, don't forget to post the link so we can comment too. Stephen B Streater 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be interesting to see how many ArbCom members reject the request. (→Netscott) 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be anti-climactic to see how many reject the request. Admins stick together like stink on shit, and when JzG says "jump," Jimbo says "How high?"

Close: it's Jimbo who shouts jump and I ask how high. Which is why I worked so hard to try and keep the Armstrong article from turning into a hatchet job. Just zis Guy you know? 07:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are in at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#JzG. Feel free to add yours. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

myg0t

Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ;)[reply]

Re-incarnation

You might want to quietly 'check' out this reincarnation of an (almost) anagram, I think the editor's agenda seriously concerns you too(sound familiar?). I see enough edit material to perfectly correlate [1] & [2]. Here he is now blanking a talk page setting forth his bias & previous uncivil behavior, deleting the (block) tag resulting from his numerical IP address[3]. Other interesting diffsmiracle 1day rfarb, then going down in flames again, wipes the trail at withdrawal[4]; last day scuffling with other admins[5]; I can provide more. He has targeted me in several articles and harps on my topics in false and disparging ways while trying to create new onerous policies[6]. I think a 3rd id is his IP address, I am unsure as to the relation of Hexagon1. His favorite subjects for both named id's: caron & stupidity/IQ; a recurring word is "psychotic". I apologize for the add'l security name, but I am really getting concerned here...--Needza restrayning odor 10:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please email me. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spell fixes

I just got obsessive compulsive and have to fix 3 minor spelling errors in your statement at RfArb. I hope you don't mind! =D --mboverload @ 11:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. I have bone-deep burn scars on my left hand dating back to an injury in my early childhood, and I routinely make characteristic typing errors - I'd never be able to successfully run a sock farm ;-) Anybody is welcome to fix these. Just zis Guy you know? 11:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god, looks like it will be rejected. My RfA failed - guess I won't know what an RfC against me feels like =) =( --mboverload @ 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that doesn't really make sense, heh. Anyway, thanks for clearing up the sockmaster =D --mboverload @ 12:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never know, in time things can change. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=D. I seem to remember you on IRC, do you have a nick there? We can chat if you want --mboverload @ 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only use irc for RC and when WP is down. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, nice to "meet" you =D. Laterz. --mboverload @ 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American International School

Thanks for protecting this article. I was starting to feel like every second edit was a revert there. Kevin 12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too man! Thanks so much! --mboverload @ 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talkpage

The comment with the diff you provided on my talkpage, [7] is irrelevant, because I cooled down myself just like ten minutes after that [8] and you probably knew it. There is no reason to warn me about something I removed, if I already realised my error. Your action doesn't fit the wiktionary nor dictionary definition of warning, because I didn't need to be informed on something I already knew, but it might be seen as bossing, which is an unacceptable thing for anyone here. Please remove the warning yourself. Azmoc 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know what is going on the other side of your computer screen, I am not psychic :-) [9] is still a personal attack. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited under an IP address for quite some time. However, you should not be questioning my edit count at all. My opinions are as valid as yours even if I didn't contribute to the good thing (wikipedia) as much as you did. Azmoc 12:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, we need ot nkow your history so we can see where you are coming from. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is "I find the fact that you think that you are running wikipedia unbelievable?" a personal attack? And like I said, you don't need to know my history at all. Azmoc 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At what point did anybody suggest they were runnig Wikipedia? "Us" in this case clearly meant the community, i.e. those editors with a history of contribution to the project. Balance of reply is on WP:ANI. Just zis Guy you know? 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason why you placed the warning on my talkpage was, that you just didn't like my proposal and were suspicious about the fact that I knew where the village pump is after few edits. You can request checkuser if you still want to know who I am. Stop using warnings in content disputes. Azmoc 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...is the wrong answer. I don't give a flying fuck about your proposal, it has no earthly chance of success. There is no content dispute. Stop Wikilawyering and accept criticism when you are in the wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not wikilawyering, stop spreading your flying fuck around me. You do something that goes against the policies, when somebody says you shouldn't do that you say he's wikilawyering. Azmoc 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the policy which was contravened was?... You got it wrong. I was perhaps a little harsh with you, but that doesn't change the fact that you got it wrong. I think we should just let it drop. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Armstrong

Hi. I'm curious why you thought it a good idea to revert Lance Armstrong to your preferred version and immediately protect it - especially since I honestly do not see any BLP issues in the version you reverted. But more to the point, I do not see how a single editor's single edit constitutes grounds for reverting an article and immediately protecting it under ANY grounds. Phil Sandifer 14:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my preferred version, it's simply a version I am comfortable with per WP:BLP. Socafan has repeatedly edit warred over the insertion of content and phrasing whihc implies that Armstrong is guilty of doping, when every test result and an official inquiry say the opposite. I posted it at WP:ANI for review, if others support a different approach they are welcome to propose or implement such. My sole concern is that Socafan's edits give more credit to the knocking copy than to the fact of his being officially clean (personally I don't believe any pro cyclist is actually clean, but that has no place here either). He also emphasises WADA over the independent review which criticised WADA. WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP apply here. Above all, there has been absolutely no attempt to discuss the detail of content and wording, just the usual "ZOMG ROUGE ADMIN ABUSE" crap, of which I am more than a little tired. As soon as Socafan shows willingness to debate the details of wording, rather than simply edit-warring over it and kicking up a fuss about being prevented from doing so, the problem evaporates. Just zis Guy you know? 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most, though not all of the problems with Socafan's additions are in the quality of his writing, not the content. He's not really adding any material that shouldn't be cited... but he's using odd phrasings and just plain awkward ones. If you look at the edit I made right before your reversion, though, I cleared most (Though not quite all) of them up. Which is another reason why it's very, very bad to protect a page to a preferred version. (Note "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." and "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." Note also that the protection policy does not support page protection to enforce BLP, and that protecting a page to deal with a user who has recently brought an arbcom case against you is TERRIBLE practice.) Phil Sandifer 15:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, I have never been in that position before. If it had been some random article on a Pokémon or some such I would happily have left it at "the wrong version" but recent exchanges on the list have left me with a very strong impression that to do so is simply not acceptable in cases of WP:BLP. Am I wrong there? I am astounded that WP:PPOL does not include BLP, since I know of at least three articles which are or have been protected for precisely that, and not flagged as WP:OFFICE (actually my reading of it is that it does cover BLP, but that may well need clarifying in the policy). Looking back I should have stubbed the section, I think. That would have been more transparent, yes? What matters here to my mind is policy, and policy is WP:NPOV especially in cases of biography. For non-biographic content there is no rush, no deadline, little realistic chance of being sued. In the case of Armstrong, he had at one point eleven lawsuits going at once. There is plenty of evidence that he takes this particular issue very seriously indeed. As always, I am happy to learn from those more experienced. What would you have done in the face of what you perceive as an editor aggressively pushing potentially defamatory content? I must have got something wrong here, or the problem would not have escalated as it did. A lot of the active admins are not much more experienced than me, so I'm not overall surprised that WP:ANI did not yield wiser counsel. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ANI is a mess. I mean, I don't even read it. (Then again, I spend 95% of my time logged out these days, and just log in when I need to speak as a grizzled old fart. Like now.) The thing is, basically, for most purposes, you can act as an administrator in a situation, or as a content editor, but not both. If you're going to edit for content, you can't protect the page. You have to find someone else to do it. In this case, I'd have used WP:RFPP, started an RFC on Socafan (or made a counterclaim in RFAr), and probably pinged someone on IRC to have a look at it, or left a note on another administrator's talk page. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. The disease of immediatism, I guess. I see a problem, I have a desire to fix it now. I am somewhat jaded about RFCs, at least in respect of providing rapid remedies to problem behaviour, and don't think this has got anywhere close to Arbcom's attention level yet. Ah well. Just zis Guy you know? 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hello JzG/Archive 24, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grand master ka 06:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't touch my posts

If you touch my posts I will report vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyColl (talk • contribs)

Like the Talk comment said, that article was deleted. You are the second person to repost it - if you are not the same as the original one...

please see

please see: Talk:Sculpture_of_Ancient_Greece#Redirect_to_Greek_Statue. Thanks. Ste4k 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

Pretty sure... it likely doesn't matter... I believe the previous name's been abandoned. (→Netscott) 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long must the articles be? xaozon 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re: Userfication of essays

Hi, Guy,

Thank you for your comments at the noticeboard.

I think my major concern is that the essay category in Wikipedia project-space is becoming a backdoor method of instruction creep, without having to build consensus or go through any sort of community review. As you point out, the threshhold for inclusion is pretty low, even though the Wikipedia-space help page notes that, "The project namespace generally consists of polished pages."

This has been a "new" issue that appears to have organically grown in the last six-seven months; and so, no policy or discussion (as far as I've come across) has been put towards it on Wikipedia. Your essay WP:HOLE which you referenced in your comments, likewise dates to February of this year. As noted at the Meta category for essays, "As of 2006, there is some disagreement about whether new essays, particularly personal essays, should be added to Meta anywhere but in user space."

Already the Category:Wikipedia_essays has generated over 200 essays, most of which are in user-space, but an increasing number are moved or created in Wikipedia-space-- including many which either make little sense, or attempt to be policy directives hidden in the guise of essays. To start alphabetically:

Wikipedia:Alternative_name (created 10 July, 2006 as an article, moved to project-space by Uncle G), which makes the bizarre claim, "An englishman from southern England may refer to London with a diferent name than an englishman from northern England."
Wikipedia:Amnesia_test, (created 21 June, 2006 by Samuel Blanning) which proposes that before writing an article, editors should "Forget everything you know about the subject."
Wikipedia:Adminitis, (created 10 February, 2006 by Kim Bruning)
Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, (created 30 March, 2006 by Brian0918), which was initially claimed to be a guideline.
Wikipedia:Avoid using WikiProject talk page templates (created 23 June, 2006 by SPUI) as a proposed guideline, then converted into an essay.

And that's just the "A"s.

While your own essays are very clever and humourous, such as Wikipedia:Beware_of_the_tigers (created in December), are they necessary clarification, or do they just create a new Wikipedia-space page that can be cited as a shorthand in discussions-- like the other newer animal-themed essays and Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons (2 Feb 2006) Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich (13 July, 2006)?

You raise an interesting point. I would say that MfD should consider each one on its merits. If several essays address a common theme, perhaps they should be merged. If an essay gives an easily understood prose description of a common problem or situation (e.g. WP:NFT) then I think it would make very good sense to keep it. I haven't thought very depely about this myself other than to note that some are very definitely attempts to retrospectively legislate in arguments where people have been on the losing side, often with the deliberate intent of subverting or evading existing guidelines (e.g. WP:NNOT). I guess m:CREEP counsels against more guidelines - proposed guidelines seem to arrive at the rate of one a week or quicker. So: I don't know :-D But I do know that one of those I looked at did seem to have at least some utility.

Perhaps we should organise them into a menu like WP:TPL, and maybe you're right there does need to be some kind of bar. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely utility in many of the essays; I certainly wouldn't claim they don't have useful points to make. However, should these count more than everyday comments people post on various discussion pages? Effectively, we have a sort of "rule inflation": even as guidelines are increasingly viewed as policy, non-consensus essays are given a "sheen of legitimacy" by virtue of being in Wikipedia-space and having an abbreviated WP: shortcut-- and thus are being treated (and cited on talk pages) as if they are guidelines. I would have no problem with the "good" ones being upgraded to proper guideline status, given appropriate community review. However, surviving an MfD might be seen as a further legitimisation; an essay that is "kept" would in effect, have de facto consensus approval to be a guideline, in a sort of round-about way. Recall the ongoing Great Userbox debate: given opportunity and no policy against it, some Wikipedians will turn innocuous "features" (like being able to write essays, or to create userboxes) into a means to promote a particular viewpoint.

In my view, the category of "essay" is currently too open for misuse, when placed on Wikipedia-space. I might suggest that essays which are not being sought as proposed guidelines be either userfied or moved to Meta. Essays on WP-space which might become guidelines, should be changed to "proposed" status and thus gain approval or rejection. The problem is there are dozens upon dozens to go through, and rarely do they get brought up for deletion-- except when they are seen as being venues for personal attack. In any event, the quantity of pseudo-namespace redirecting to personal essays should be pruned back-- it reminds me of .COM registration, with people vying to get "cool" domain names for their personal pages. --Leflyman^Talk 16:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Notes

What do you think of this? Special:Contributions/WileyPublishing. Looks like publisher adding a link to the Cliff Notes for all the classic works of fiction. Not sure about the rules, but seems wrong. Fan-1967 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. This looks like the entire Cliff Notes online free, which is a boon for students of the subject, but as you say a problem for spamwatchers. Since it is to the content, not to a sales blurb and off-the-page sales pitch I'd be inclined to allow it. But I'd need to lok at more than a couple to assess whether this is really full content or just enough to suck you in and sell. Just zis Guy you know? 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I wish I'd had these available when I was in school. I had to actually buy the Cliff Notes, or <shudder> actually read the book. Fan-1967 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that's harsh :o) "Once more into the breach, dear friends, or close the wall up with out English dead..." Fammit, I can almost hear Olivier saying it. Just zis Guy you know? 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had to watch out for trying to use the movies. I think Olivier's Hamlet left Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern on the cutting-room floor. Kind of lost a bit. On the other hand, we did have the Classics Illustrated comics way back when, but they were awfully abridged, too. Fan-1967 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But.... Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead! :o) I'm off to get on my recumbent bicycle for a nice ride in the sun. Later. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's been blocked. -- Fan-1967 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted an opening for a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Cliffs Notes on works of literature - should we link them?. -- Fan-1967 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi there, thank you very much, I had not expected that. I am impressed, honestly. Can we start discussing at the article talk pages now? Socafan 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already there. Just zis Guy you know? 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid your recent biased edits leave some doubt for me to believe in an honest apology: [10] [11] [12] [13]. Socafan 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a bad, bad rouge admin. :-) (→Netscott) 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologised for being obnoxious to you. I am completely sincere in that. The fact that I stongly dispute the tone of your edits surrounding the doping allegations against Armstrong is completely separate. I think part of your problem here might be a failure to separate issues fomr personalities. It is perfectly possible to disagree and still remain civil. It is not, however, permissible to editorialise and insinuate guilt where none is proven. To take content which has been rejected in some form in one article and insert it into another in the same form is not permitted. It is called a POV fork. Just zis Guy you know? 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Homer

So, you left the Astrology page when the getting was good. The BS continues. I wonder if you might look at the above user and his talk attacks. Some examples: [14] [15]. Basically, he just pops up on talk every once in a while to name call. He was blocked a month ago and replied as follows [16]. Sorry to bother. The page has been an absolute drain on my Wiki-time. Marskell 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clue-by-four wielded. POV warriors we don't need. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's obviously not going to affect his behaviour, unfortunately. Marskell 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by his email to me, no. Just zis Guy you know? 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lauder-Frost

I'm sorry about the delays regarding this article. I will check on the status shortly; I've just returned from holidays so am not aware of the status. - Amgine 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to communicate with Brad, who is out of office on a support-raising trip. I'll be following up as soon as I am able. - Amgine 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenphobic comments

I'm very concerned about the xenophobic comment you made on the "Lance Amstrong" talk page. I don't think Wikipedia admin shall behave this way. As for now, I'll watch your edits, just to be sure it was an incident.JeDi 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been addressed. The intent was to point out the very high levels of ill-feeling the Americans had engendered in the French at the time, and the corresponding likelihood of UCI letting Lance Armstrong, of all cyclists, get off a doping charge. It is an absurd idea. Ullrich and Basso have both been suspended this year, UCI have in the past pulled entire teams. There is no plausible basis for believing they would allow Armstrong to get away with it. Just zis Guy you know? 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with JzG's explanation. You read it wrong. --mboverload @ 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan

User:Bikeable found a copy of that book in the library where he studies. You can read what he has to say on my talk page but the core is that the book is about the Holy Roman Empire, and has nothing about Schwarzenbergs in any century. Our desperate housewife is the kid and was lying though his teeth as usual. Fan-1967 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unexpected. Just zis Guy you know? 13:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures in Paris

Hi, I'm having problems with that List of tallest structures in Paris again. This article was incorrectly named, as 70% of all it contains is not in the city of Paris, so I moved it to List of tallest structures in the Paris region. It's been moved back twice by two contributors who are of course unable and seemingly unwilling to provide any valid reference or argument to maintain their case. Basically what this amounts to is a couple of what seems to be suburban kids (amazingly similar in opinion and editing habits and article contributions) using Wiki to make it look like they live in the Big City - that Paris isn't. I've provided on the article talk page sources proving inaccuracy and links to Wiki naming conventions outlining what should be the correct name, but in spite of this all propositions go unanswered and any attempt at correction is reverted. This is a situation beyond pigheaded, and I'm even being dogged by one of the above contributors - you will no doubt get an answer to this below. I hope I'm wrong.

If you see the reason in the above and in the article talk page, would it be possible to move the article from its present space to List of tallest structures in the Paris region once again?

Sorry again for all the trouble. THEPROMENADER 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: for a clear picture of what I'm talking about, you can have a look at this map. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input - left you an answer. THEPROMENADER 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me - I should have gone about it the official way from the start. I've just filed a WP:RM. Thanks and cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've been following, but since your intervention the teapot turned tempest. The London vs. Greater London example you cited earlier was dot-on for London, as both are both commonly and even officially called "London", but the only region comparable to Greater London in the Paris area is called the Île-de-France, not Paris. The "Paris metropolitan area" term (a term never used here, btw) describes an area even bigger. The simple fact of this is verifiable most everywhere. (looking up and down) You seem to have more than your share of things to worry about though - just consider this an update. Hopefully things won't get out of hand again. THEPROMENADER 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

need a vist please

Do you think you could avert an edit war before it starts please? Please see discussion at the bottom of course in miracles. Thanks. Ste4k 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan announcement

"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. I did post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until [ Rook wave ], [ Phr ] and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)

Noel Rawsthorne

No problem! Shame there isn't more information about him online, as I don't know a great deal offhand. David L Rattigan 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM

I saw your note on the ACIM page. This are so many subjects of interest to groups of people in the world that do not fall in the realm of academic.

As far I am concerned, what was a good article (with good referencing considering the material) has been destroyed. I believe that particular user has driven the original author away from WP. The person that was trying to help appears to have left. As far as I know I was the last person familiar with the subject. If it is the policy of WP to let "editors" who have no knowledge of a subject destroy the work of others then I have no desire to have much interaction with WP any longer.--Who123 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the original quality of the article - it read as a homily or dissertation. Pretty much all the referencing was to the book itself, which made the whole article original research. If there are no secondary sources, then we can't have an article, certainly not one of any substance, per WP:V. It really is that simple. Yes, it's a problem. But we can't simply ignore it. It would be better to work with Ste4k and address her (valid) concerns rather than simply complain that, in essence, because we can't have certain content per policy then we should ignore policy. Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying but how does it differ from this article? Rainbow_Gathering --Who123 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: I'm interested in ACIM :-) There are many carp articles. Hopefully, one by one, they attract the attention of people motivated to fix them. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning

I take it that you have deleted without discussion the Category:Junk science road safety which I created earlier, given that you have 'reverted' the three (Road-rule enforcement camera, Speed limit and Speed bump) articles which I had added to that category before it disappeared, and that you left an unexplained 'warning' on my talk page. All of those articles (and others which I was about to add to it) rely on junk science for one side of the debate or the other. Can you please explain your apparently rather draconian reaction, and explain why you do not want to see road safety articles which are linked by a common theme of controversy related to the use, interpretation and appropriateness of research, related through a common category reflecting that link. -De Facto 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The road safety articles already are linked by a common theme of controversy, it's Category:Road safety. As was clear in the deletion debate for the previous category, there is pretty much nothing in road safety which is without at least some element of controversy - but equally there are few if any road safety interventions which are without at least some arguable merit. Replacing the deleted category with something even more POV is pointless and absurd. The smart move would be to write an encyclopaedic article on controversies in road safety, as suggested in the CFD debate. Just zis Guy you know? 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd allow me to write Controversies in road safety, even though it uses the 'c' word - but would I be able to list the articles that were in the deleted category in it. There is, to me at least, a subtle difference between the generic kind of controversy inherent in most, if not all road safety measures that you allude to, and the so-called 'junk science' supported/opposed measures, or those supported/opposed by research subject to much legitimate scientific scepticism. Those few articles of the latter types are the items that I wish to group together in a category so that other interested readers can find them in one place without the need to trawl through the lists of innocuous Category:Road safety items. -De Facto 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, as a largely disinterested observer, I must say the above is scarcely coherent. Your attempts at persuasion might be more effective were you to take a bit of time to think through your points and present them cogently. Try to see the following sentence (if we must call it that) as though you hadn't written it: There is, to me at least, a subtle difference between the generic kind of controversy inherent in most, if not all road safety measures that you allude to, and the so-called junk science supported/opposed measures, or those supported/opposed by research subject to much legitimate scientific scepticism. Now read it again; I'll be back with a handmade sandwich before you're done. Five commas. Two slashes. You've given your reader an urgent case of lexical indigestion by the time he's got to "subtle"! Scheinwerfermann 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is obviously that yes, you could write an appropriately neutral and balanced article on controversies in road safety because - as I've pointed out more than once - I can't think of a single area of road safety that is entirely free from controversy. A category is meaningless for that reason, and an article can detail the areas of controversy. For example, I can't foresee much controversy about the idea that parking on a busy through-route during peak periods is selfish and antisocial, but clamping someone for parking on a road with no traffic on a Sunday might well be controversial. In my view the majority of controversy stems from details of enforcement. Similarly, you can't call the science which underpins speed limits junk science - that's a label I'd have to reserve for the likes of Paul Smith - but there is some questionable use of statistics and some evidence of fallacious arguments in those who argue for enforcement in some circumstances.

Just for the sake of argument, let's take a short trip through Category:Road Safety:

5 M factors - motorist centred.
AA Motoring Trust - motorist centred
Accident blackspot - accident migration, regression to the mean
Accident migration - risk compensation theory
Association of British Drivers - "selfish bastards" wasn't it?
Centre for Automotive Safety Research - car headbands, risk compensation
Construction site safety - controversy over which is the source of risk
Crash attenuator - risk compensation theory, pedestrians are not fitted with them
Cycling Proficiency Test - obsolete playground-based training, superseded by National Standards
Driving simulator - no substitute for the real thing
Fatality Analysis Reporting System - supposed massive under-reporting of injuries
Fitch Barrier - risk compensation again
John Fitch (driver) - and again
Jaywalking - why blame the pedestrian? They use the roads by right, motorists only under license
Killed or Seriously Injured - inaccurate but widely used due to larger numbers than (more accurate) fatalities

By which time I lost interest. I can see areas of controversy attached to every item in that category, and actually the only real differentiator is the degree of controversy. Incidentally, I'm somewhat surprised you chose not to place ABD in there since they are undoubtedly highly controversial.

The whole subject is controversial, there is not even universal agreement over what constititutes safety (safety for whom? from whom?). Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I read your comment on Jdas07 talk page. Thank you for the insight on samsloan.com and ishipress.com. However, the Hindi-Urdū-Pashtu-English Comparative Word list linked on the Hindi, Hindustani, Pashto, Roman Urdu, and Urdu pages is neutral content, is inoffensive, and does not violate any copyrights. The list is actually very helpful when comparing languages of the South Asian-Middle Eastern dialect continuum. Maybe we should keep this link on just these five pages. Thank you for your understanding. AbdulQadir 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Niederhoffer

Hi, This article is in need of a bit of NPOV'ing I feel. I don't want to get into a revert war over it - any suggestions appreciated. Dlyons493 Talk 19:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article reads like an advertisement! I think the first step is to get some profiles from mainstream magazines, if any are available. I'm out of my depth here because I know nothing of that world (even though I work for a company active in the financial markets). I'd also try to find out how the returns his trading made compare with other similar figures. Was he one of Soros' top traders or somewhere in the middle? Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YTMND

Why do you hate YTMND so much? I must know the reason for such an "irrational" opinion! ;D TacoNazi 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am indifferent to YTMND, but most of the YTMNDs linked contain copyright violations either in the images or the soundtracks. YTMNDers are also engaged in viral marketing and I see no reason to help them along. Just zis Guy you know? 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing in the edit notes seems a bit over the top for someone who considers YTMND to be immature... 83.105.37.55 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In calling them wankers I was characterising the YTMNDers' action in adding their fads to mainspace article as being essentially masturbation - i.e. providing pleasure only to the perpetrator and generally substantially less enjoyable (if not outright nauseating) for any onlookers. It was a simple factual statement. Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that YTMND fads do not belong in mainspace articles, and I also agree that vandalism should be dealt with swiftly, there are many edits that do not look like vandalism. While I agree that they should be reverted, and while I will revert them if I come across them, I should ask you to join me and assume good faith on edits that do not look like obvious attempts at vandalism. On several of the WikiProjects I'm involved with, I merge a lot of this cruft, but me and the other editors always assume good faith in the people who wrote the content we merged (we leave them friendly messages, not hateful ones). Just because something is out of hand doesn't mean we should ignore the foundations of our community. Sir Crazyswordsman 13:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On edits that do not looks like vandalism, I do indeed try to assume good faith. Adding NEDM to the list of breed standards, linked to the YTMND fad, was vandalism, as were many of the other edits. You can only adda fad so many times to an article before it becomes obvious that the article is the playground du jour. Perhaps if it did not happen quite so often it would be easier to be sanguine about it... Just zis Guy you know? 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I see no difference between what they have done and your response, but will agree with your definition. Maybe someone with less of a compulsion towards self gratification should deal with them in future. 83.105.37.55 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get back under your bridge or I'll call the big billy-goat gruff to kick the shit out of you again. Just zis Guy you know? 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to involve your wife, I'm merely pointing out that swearing is immature and attention seeking. 83.105.37.55 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that you think my wife, who is 5'4" tall, could kick the shit out of you. Clearly your body is as puny as your intellect. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me,it seems that you provoke YTMND for continuing vandalism,look at the link in the British Shorthair talk page. I wish you think of something that they can agree on,so this nonsense will stop. TTFN. --72.50.20.55 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted DRV

To be honest, that DRV was in need of a bit of rougeness. I did warn the user concerned that I thought listing it was a bad idea, and it seems that I was right. With any luck the matter ends here. (Some good did come out of it, as it gave me a chance to notice that the DRV daily subpage hadn't been transcluded). --ais523 11:37, 21 July 2006 (U T C)

Removing external links from AfD pages

I've reverted your "delinking" of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination). We now have rel=nofollow enabled on pages outside the main namespace, so those links won't contribute to search engine rankings. Thus there is no point in not making them real links. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I will continue to unlink offsite copyvios, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 12:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This will make the list of backmasked messages a lot easier to clean up. Λυδ α cιτγ 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kittie May Ellis

Why did you state here that this article is unverifiable? In my previous versions I've posted at least 15 secondary, published sources. Are you just reading what other editors have claimed (without any basis I might add). The newspaper the Snohomish Tribune is a verifiable source just for one. Wjhonson 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Second time I've chanced across your name on something - good to get a sense of Wikipedians overlapping, but you really ought to cut down that HTML in your sig. Unless you've written it to look great in a specific browser that I'm unfamiliar with, the following alternative cuts 18 characters off of it:-

Just zis <b style="border:1px;padding:2px;color:#fff;background:#008;">Guy</b> you know?

Although to be honest it does seem a bit jarring and unprofessional to have a big blue word in a signature; I was expecting an excited new Wikipedia user rather than an admin, when I hit your userpage. But I guess it's your call. --McGeddon 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for it is so I can easily spot my sig in long conversations. Just zis Guy you know? 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know that it breaks up the flow for everyone who isn't you, and makes editing slightly disorientating when the sig takes up a full two lines of source (which the abbreviated HTML would at least cut down, if you feel like using it). Wikipedia's signature guidelines have a few thoughts on this sort of thing, if you've not seen them. --McGeddon 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seen them, enforced them. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My unsolicited vote: It creates no real problem for anyone. There are things worth griping about; this isn't on the list. Scheinwerfermann 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just zis Guy you know? <-- Any difference? I like the JzG sig myself... but with my own sig I suppose I'm a bit biased. :-) (→Netscott) 04:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for British style

For british locations like here, would it be a good/bad idea to create British-location style redirects (i.e. "Somewhere (Shire)" redirects to "Somewhere, Shire")? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, unless people are asking or it's a common alias. I live in Reading, Berkshire not Reading (Berkshire), but I do know that St. Albans (Herts) was common usage A Long Time Ago, not sure if it still is. Er.... dunno :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK....I just remember seeing a user somewhere who used commonwealth english all angry about the comma construction...they made a big deal about the parentheses style, but I guess it isn't all they made it out to be ;) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you miss this reply in the noise

I opposed the Sean Black RfA. I have never had any contact with Sean as an admin, certainly no negative experiences. But on doing research he failed to meet the qualities that I would like to see in an admin. This was not an oppose vote based on malice. I would like to think it was quite objective. Last time I checked people can oppose for any reason they like, although weight will only be given to reasonable rationales. I think that creating a list of those that oppose, for who knows what reason, is well beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour in this community. That does not extend any level of good faith to those that decide to oppose an RfA. So those that question us for asking the role of such a list, with the argument "you need to assume good faith", are totally hypocritical (i don't think you have made this argument but many admins have.) Below is your original comment with my reply. Thanks for taking time to see this from a different perspective. David D. (Talk) 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean was a good admin before, nobody produced any credible evidence that he had abused admin tools, he requested desysopping, resysopping should be a formality. I don't think we should even have had a vote, since there was no reason to desysop him other than his own request. To my reading (based on a quick survey) a number of the Oppose votes were sour grapes from people against whom he'd taken (well-founded) actions. This might be a sampling error, of course. Anyway, User:Danny made a fair case I thought. I invoke the No Big Deal clause, myself. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you wrote "nobody produced any credible evidence that he had abused admin tools". My oppose vote was not based on his use or misuse of the tools. My oppose opinion was based on the fact that he seems to bite people in the process of using the tools. If someone had made any effort to defend my olppose on this basis I may well of reconsidered my vote. Instead there was quite an ad hom campaign against those that had expressed this opinion. Such comments are not reallly the best way to try and change someones opinion. On top of that my opinon was further cemented when Sean wrote:

"I don't. I compose edit summaries to inform whomever may read them what the edit I'm making is. They sometimes express frustration, because I am sometimes frustrated. They sometimes express humour and good cheer, because I am sometimes happy. They sometimes express apathy, because I am sometimes apathetic. They sometimes express rudeness, because I am sometimes rude. They are sometimes blunt, because I am sometimes blunt. They always express humanity, because I am always human. I see no reason to pretend that I have no emotions under the guise of being "civil"; if my emotions are extreme to the point that I will do something I will regret, then I cease editing." [17]

I would be more comforted to see him stop editing before he becomes rude, as well as before his emotions become extreme. I look for admins that can stay cool in stressful situations, count to ten before writing the edit summary or recuse themselves from the situation. He may be human but i'd rather not see the worst traits of humanity being expressed from the wikipedia admins. Everyone is always talking about community but how can we have a community if people express all their negitivity when people disagree. An admin should be able to reason with those that diagree. I have no problem with admins being firm but i want to seem some sensible rationale too.

Finally he ignored the very valid question from El C with regard to the B list; El C asked:

"I notice that the contents of User:Kelly Martin/B (Deleted revision as of 3 July 2006) features the following [list of people]. Then, the next edit by Sean Black features the following addition: Xoloz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) My question, then, is what was meant by that addition, and if you have time, maybe a hint as to the purpose behind the entire thingy." [18]

Why wouldn't he answer such a question if the list was a joke or something trivial. This kind of backroom chatter and list making has no apparent purpose for the benefit of the encylopedia. What ever happened to AGF? It is quoted ad naseum at those that question the existence of the list. So where is the good faith of those editors that created the list in the first place? Seriously, a list of those that oppose you in an RfA. What good could possibly come from such a list? ElC deserved an answer to this question.

So, overall, my oppose that start off as quite weak grew stronger and stronger. I am now sure i made the right choice. David D. (Talk) 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone has the right to oppose (or indeed support) a candidate for any good reason, and that good reason doesn't have to seem like a good reason to anyone else but themselves. But I stand by my comments: he was a good admin before, I see no reason to doubt he'll be a good admin again. Since he voluntarily gave up the sysop bit I think its reapplicaiton should be a formality, absent any evidence that he abused his status before. This is supposed to be no big deal. This is in any case well within the range of closing 'crat's discretion. If you find Sean abusing his admin status there will be plenty of people in line to join the lynch-mob :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this earlier. I may have confused you with this original message. I was not soliciting you to change your opinion, or even justify your opinion. Only for you to see that not all the oppose votes were due to negative interactions with Sean and certainly not due to malice. This seemed to be an underlying suspicion throughout the RfA. As far as the closing of the RfA, i had no problem with the closing 'crats discretion. I agree that the bar should not be as high for returning admins. David D. (Talk) 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure. I looked through some, and they did seem to be, but I'd never accuse you of that and I apologise if you saw it as such. I think I stated that it was a very cursory review, and thinking about it I probably concentrated on the names I didn't know from other debates, which would bias the result towards the sour-grapes types. Just zis Guy you know? 10:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Heritage Fleet

Hey JzG, sorry to bother you but would you mind taking another look at the above article? I don't understand how it isn't a copyright violation. It seems to me that a couple of words have been removed and the sentences reversed but it's basically the same text. The second paragraph of the Wiki text is nearly word-for-word:

Wiki text:

Lady Hopetoun and Port Jackson Marine Steam Museum, the forerunner of the Sydney Heritage Fleet, was founded in 1965 by a public-spirited individuals to preserve Sydney’s steam yacht "Lady Hopetoun". The organisation later changed it's name to the Sydney Maritime Museum. In 1998 the museum adopted the trading name Sydney Heritage Fleet, which remains the name today

Aust Heritage Fleet text:

The Lady Hopetoun and Port Jackson Marine Steam Museum, the forerunner of the Sydney Heritage Fleet, was founded in 1965 by a group of public-spirited individuals to preserve Sydney’s 1902 VIP steam yacht Lady Hopetoun. The organisation later became known as the Sydney Maritime Museum Limited. In 1998 the museum adopted the trading name Sydney Heritage Fleet. The Fleet now comprises 10 historical vessels which is amongst the largest such collection in Australia.

Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rewording (albeit minor) of a very small subset of the web page, which may therefore be fair use, and the subject is unquestionably encyclopaedic; I say give them the benefit of the doubt and ask the author to clean it up. Or tag it again and see if another admin will bite, I don't claim to be an expert,. just doing my best. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're doing your best, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just don't understand. And FWIW, the person who posted that article has posted multiple copyvios despite warnings. Thanks anyway, I appreciate your help. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No implication implied :-) Looking at it, yes, they are of differing degrees of blatant. I think I might just rouge it up a bit after all. Just zis Guy you know? 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for move, Headlight → Headlamp

Attempted to rename Headlight to Headlamp, unable to do so because Headlamp contains a redirect with an edit history. Rationale: While it is common for the two terms to be used interchangeably in colloquial speech, headlampis the technically correct term for the device itself. All regulations and technical specifications worldwide refer to headlamps, and not to "headlights". All manufacturers of such devices consider themselves makers of headlamps, not "headlights". All human-factors and traffic-safety researchers worldwide refer in their works to headlamps, not to "headlights". "Headlight" properly refers to the light itself, produced and distributed by the headlamp(s). This is certainly a distinction that would not be honored in everyday conversation or informal writing, but we're writing an encyclopedia here, so precision counts. Talking about "sealed beam lights" or "round lights" or "rectangular lights" or "replaceable-bulb lights" might be acceptable in a stylistic analysis in which the devices are significantly only by dint of their existence; such usage, though, is technically improper in a discussion of lighting devices. This article's improper title has been a low-level irritant for quite some time; 193.202.109.254's attempt to standardize on one term, even though s/he picked the wrong one, is the impetus for requesting a pagemove to correct that impropriety. Your assistance would be appreciated. TIA, Scheinwerfermann 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply

thanks for your message above. i saw kelly gave a reasoned response to the list. Apparently research for an upcoming talk. That sounds reasonable. Now step away from the computer and "get on yer bike". You obviously spend far too much time here according to the charity message above. ;) David D. (Talk) 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rode both ways to work yesterday and rode in this morning - it's 25 miles each way. Willthat do? ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[19] CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grr...

You closed out the Warders guild AfD just as I was about to make a brilliant point (well, I thought it was brilliant). :) --DarkAudit 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You owe it to the world to let us know what that brilliant point was! Just zis Guy you know? 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even the most notable of gaming guilds/clans, Panda Attack and Djork, don't have articles on them, and probably never will. :) --DarkAudit 14:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you working hard to help people learn how to work within the Wikipedia community. For your patience and persistence in these situations, cheers! FreplySpang 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nourhaghighi by User:Nourhaghighi

I don't know if you remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nourhaghighi. If so, you'll really love the second round, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nourhaghighi (2 nomination). -- Fan-1967 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this last night before I went to bed, and didn't have time then to review other contribs. Amazing. I'm at a loss for words. Nice cleanup effort by you, Kinu and Mak. Fan-1967 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The YTMND user template

I have restored it per the German Userbox solution, and put in the redirection to where the template code is now, safe on userspace. Crazyswordsman 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zazz

Mate, There are two sources and none of them is a press release, Where did people get that from? Feedyourfeet 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart fomr the one which is a press release, obviously :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SirIsaacBrock

I noticed that you were the one to enact the block on SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs), it appears that a user JukeBox (talk · contribs) has shown up who seems to be interested in Hitler and Dog fighting, SirIsaacBrock's favorite topics. Four edits probably aren't enough for insta-blocking as sockpuppet, and checkuser could take weeks - so maybe you might like to keep an eye out. - Trysha ^(talk) 07:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Berkhamsted

Hi, if you remember I added the speedy deletion-tag on this article. You have removed it because the notation was right anyway. It isn't. I had created the page and the redirect, but it I forgot a "P". It should be Earl of Berkham"P"sted, an article which I had noticed later exists already. So my creation is wrong written and unused, both things together a good reason to delete it. Greetings Phoe 07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhampstead is an archaic spelling of Berkhamstead and is a redirect, so if it is formally a mis-spelling it's a likely one. Redirects are cheap :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've got right, one redirect more won't crush wikipedia's server. Maybe my actual mistake will avoid unsuccessfull searches by other users. Thanks for your explanation. Good day, week, year ... life :-) Phoe 09:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo

I was wondering if you could help me with one of the countless problems I’m having with WikiWoo. He’s was messing around with List of Ontario census divisions (although I admit it was because I redirected one of his garbage pages to it), adding every single tier municipality in Ontario to the list, even though the page is about census divisions, which don’t necessarily correspond, so to fix the trouble I created List of Ontario municipalities (a page I agree may be far too crowded). On the page I separated single and dual tier municipalities and then subdivided these into type in order to make things at least somewhat manageable. I have explained to WikiWoo more than once, through edit summaries and his talk page, that no information he is attempting to convey is lost in this arrangement. He is ignoring this, however, and pasting the entire list of single tier municipalities, in an unwikified an unorganized format, into the article, claiming that I am censoring him. Now I realize, as you’ll see by reading his talk page, that I am interacting with him very harshly. But the number of ridiculous things he’s done, and the claims of conspiracy and vandalism he’s lobbed at me are really getting to be too much. I really think he needs an administrator to set him straight on some things. OzLawyer 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if this is a case of loose tigers or a loose screw. Hard to tell right now; God alone knows what he's trying to do and why. Just zis Guy you know? 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's attepting to show that the Regional governmental structure in Ontario is "bad." In particular, he's dealing with articles related to Peel Region, inserting anything he possibly can to try to denegrate the region. I and a couple other people have been having a lot of trouble with him on Susan Fennell (although he seems to have moved on to something else for today at least). Thanks a lot for your help, and I apologise in advance if I end up coming back to you again and again over him. =( OzLawyer 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Chapman (film)

... any relation? (may be red-linked by the time you read this; you'll have to peek behind the curtain.) JDoorj a m Talk 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think this is the same man as does the video games, though. There is also a New Zealand lawyer and a famous historian by the same name. Common as muck... Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM

Would you please look at the discussion page on ACIM under Introduction. It seems that whatever is written for this article, Ste4k is going to obstruct. Thanks--Who123 02:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR Complaints

I am having trouble understanding your standings on WP:OR in regards to the article YTMND. Following that argument that all YTMND's are OR, does this mean that all information on YTMND would have to come from outside sources? How would the YTMND Wiki be a viable and acceptable, non-OR source, if it gains an overwhelming majority of info from YTMND's? Would the "YTMND News" be considered OR, since the only source is Max Goldberg?

I will be attempting to remove OR from the YTMND article, but i fear it may be labled as vandalism since it would remove a large part of the article. What steps would you advise me take as a precaution? 24.167.68.211 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That cat

Stop adding the stupid cat thing to articles. It's complete bollocks and please do believe that the number of people outside YTMND who care about YTMND fads is between none at all and even less than that. Just zis Guy you know? 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, who would've thought an image from a long running YTMND fad would belong on the YTMND article in the fad and meme section? --NEMT 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR and keep it out of the article. Thanks 24.167.68.211 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight, anonymous RoadRunner user. --NEMT 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange thosugh this may seem - and I know it will come as an enormous shock to some people - YTMND fads not only fall below the level generally considered globally significant, but are actually negligible as far as pretty much everybody outside YTMND is concerned. As you know, NEMT, you added that cat bullshit to more than just the YTMND article. I deleted Happy Cat as a repost. Just zis Guy you know? 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? The only place I put the image was on the YTMND article in the specific fad section. I don't want to call you a liar and a policy violator, or even an incompetent admin, but hey. --NEMT 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The lifespan of this breed is 10 to 15 years unless exposed to doom music" in British Shorthair? It's not an image, but it's definitely "that cat bullshit," and fucking around with Wikipedia. · rodii · 20:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right rodii, it's not an image. --NEMT 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... · rodii · 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently in NEMTworld "thing" and "image" are synonymous. A limited vocabulary indeed. Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, do I have to put you up on request for intervention? --NEMT 01:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to try. Or you could recognise that what you were doing was vandalism and simply drop it. Just zis Guy you know? 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My neck

Aim higher, please -- you will hit nothing of value. Seriously, I read you loud and clear.--Mantanmoreland 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kavanaugh

Hi, a while ago you undid some vandalism on my talk page and banned the person who did it. Could you explain to the editor at Brett Kavanaugh that putting conspiracy theories on a federal judge's article is not acceptable. I have explained his sources are questionable-- that is one of his books claims that Clinton was behind the Oaklahoma City bombing. Thanks. C56C 05:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JzG:

Thank you for adding your comments to the discussion page of the Brett Kavanaugh article. A neutral viewpoint can be helpful to improve the article and make it as accurate as possible.

Apparently without reading the book, "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," by British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, published by Regnery 1997, C56C has made the charge that the book, "claims that Clinton was behind the Oaklahoma (sic) City bombing." Perhaps C56C found this statement in a citizen's online book review at Amazon.com since the charge appears there. Reading online book reviews is not equal to the task of reading the book.

C56C used this false claim to unfairly smear the entire book and further allege other "sources are questionable." C56C should be asked to provide a direct quote with the page number from Evans-Pritchard's book to support the outrageous charge. The book either "claims that Clinton was behind the Oklahoma City bombing," or it does not. If the book does not make the claim then it is C56C who is actually the questionable source.

On page five the author did raise this question, "But what if the Clinton administration has not told the full truth about the Oklahoma bombing, as many of the families now suspect?" The blame for not telling the full truth is directed primarily at the Justice Department. Whatever faults are in Evans-Pritchard's book, claiming President Clinton was behind the tragic bombing is not one of them.

To be fair, the title of the book, "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," may confuse readers to believe that somehow Bill Clinton was to blame. I personally know that privately the author Ambrose Evans-Pritchard objected to the title, but the publisher Regnery insisted on the title. The poorly chosen title may have unfairly cast a shadow over the former President, but the author never even remotely claimed, "that Clinton was behind the Oklahoma City bombing."

Reading the source documents used as references to the Brett Kavanaugh article should be done before discussion or characterizing the sources as "questionable." Loaded words like "conspiracy theory" are not a substitute for good scholarship. Thank you, Thomist 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love conspiracy theories - as a fan of irony and satire they strike me as some of the funniest material out there. When I was an H2G2 researcher I wrote the article on conspiracy theories: [20] The one repeatable feature of all these is that they apply a SEP field to any obvious, prosaic explanation. What's more likely: a deranged libertarian extremist bombing a Federal building, or the President of the United States arrranging it for, er, some real good reason, honest? Anyway, I have no real opinion here other than that we should take a small-c conservative approach in the case of any living individual. If these theories are really so very plausible then there will be numerous excellent high-quality sources we can cite. If there aren't, well, we know what inference we can draw. Pace Jimbo, I think we are too ready to assume good faith on the part of people who, frankly, fail to demonstrate it. Not saying that's the case here, I'm just getting a bit weary of POV-pushers and soapbox merchants. Just zis Guy you know? 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon.com editorial for "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," states the book "connects the president to everything from 1997's Oklahoma City bombing to Arkansas's drug underworld to the mysterious death of White House aide and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and, of course, to Paula Jones."[21] As for Christopher Ruddy's book Thomist cited, [22] "The Park Police, the F.B.I., Special Counsel Robert Fiske and Foster's family all concluded that he had killed himself where he was found. But for four years a floating crap game, including Clinton bashers, radio hosts, Net crawlers, kooks, Jerry Falwell and a few journalists, has questioned the verdict, suggesting or insisting that he died elsewhere or by some other hand." Referring to Ruddy's evidence "some of Ruddy's unanswered questions are undoubtedly the normal static of police work." That's of course, if you read Amazon.com and NY Times editorial. Maybe Thomist believes they too are part of the conspiracy? C56C 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But have you read the book? Anyway, the solution is to debate on Talk first and steer clear of novel syntheses. Just zis Guy you know? 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read that book. I haven't read any book or video by Kent Hovind either. Yet, since both defy commonly held beliefs and are part of a fringe population I can depend on experts in the field. Experts have concluded there was no Vincent Foster cover up and Hovind is wrong on his beliefs as well.

Hovind's work and the criticisms of it are widely available on the net and in print. Criticisms of Hovind do not rely on novel syntheses or interpretaitons of reviews - we can attribute criticisms directly to named authorities in many cases. And the Hovind article is not one of the better examples to look at anyway since opposition to him is on the basis of science not political affiliation. Just zis Guy you know? 09:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hovind is an excellent example because we are talking about evidence in both cases. The conspiracy Thomist wants to add is contrary to evidence presented by official investigators-- I mean three separate, independent investigations (including one that cost 80 million US dollars). Politicial affliations are irrelevant as long as the facts can be backed up with reliable sources. C56C 11:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to dispute the Amazon.com and NY Times reviews then should take it up with those sources. C56C 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. C56C has been misleading JzG. C56C concealed from JzG that book reviews were used in place of reading actual books or documents and by calling me the name "conspiracy theorist" convinced JzG to issue me a "warning."

I appear to be the only person here who actually read the Official Investigative Report and the two books used as sources. JzG wrote, "If these theories are really so very plausible then there will be numerous excellent high-quality sources we can cite." By "these theories" I assume we are talking about grand jury witness intimidation which is the issue C56C seems unwilling to allow into the article. One "excellent high-quality source" that I have cited is the second highest court in the United States, the Special Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals that released the Official Report. Within the Official Report, the grand jury witness intimidation is discussed on several pages. This court IS the most "excellent high-quality source" to issue an opinion on "these theories."

C56C wrote, "The conspiracy Thomist wants to add (sic) is contrary to evidence presented by official investigators." First, can we agree not to call each other names? Is it necessary to give me the label, "conspiracy Thomist?" Second, the statement is absolutely false that I want to add something contrary to the evidence presented in the Official Report. How would C56C even know this having relied on book reviews (second hand opinions) rather than reading the actual books or Official Report? Name-calling is the result of poor scholarship.

The references, regarding grand jury witness intimidation, cited in books ARE consistent with the discussion of grand jury witness intimidation found in the Official Report. C56C has now made TWO FALSE statements: 1) That Evans-Pritchard's book "claims that Clinton was behind the Oaklahoma (sic) City bombing." 2) "The conspiracy Thomist wants to add (sic) is contrary to evidence presented by official investigators."

Should Wikipedia use these false statements by C56C to determine reliable sources?

Only by reading the Official Report will it be clear that I have not offered any novel syntheses. I have only presented the facts as they officially are. Absent reading the official document it would be prudent to withhold judgement on novel sytheses. I have been unfairly judged enough by the uninformed. Thomist 02:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis of medieval

Please re-visit the discussion. Uncle G 09:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don, thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 10:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments regarding my filing for arbitration

In your comments on my filing for arbitration which you made earlier here. You mentioned "personalise everything, for reasons I am at a loss to understand". You might find those reasons stated on my talk page in comments here, in a discussion with Will Beback concerning another matter entirely. Please feel free to contact me in that regard on my talk page. Thanks. Ste4k 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't understand what motivates you to take things personally even when people say they are not personal. Honestly. Just zis Guy you know? 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Products

Why the revert? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Best_Products&diff=66406276&oldid=66404240 My input was based on knowledge of SITE's work, which I have researched thoroughly.

It can go in the SITE article. Sorry, I should have got round to posting at your Talk but I got sidetracked. Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. However I do feel that the caption of the showroom/store photo should be changed, as typical Best Products showrooms were simple big-box buildings, not the high-concept works that SITE created. That particular photo is of a 1979 piece that incorporated water walls and a greenhouse of sorts within the facade. Definitely atypical.

Fair comment. You could make that point (succinctly) in the image caption, perhaps? Just zis Guy you know? 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of warning on Geogre's page

I appreciate your frustration stated at AN/I towards those of us who would like to include school articles in the project. I also respect Geogre's (and others') right to disagree with those of us who feel that school articles are worthwhile. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that in the course of a discussion/argument, it is a personal attack to say "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble" as it obviously refers to some participants in the said discussion. Even with the contradictory defense that he didn't intend it towards anyone specifically, expect that it was intended towards someone else further down the page, it is at the very, very least uncivil. You know as well as I do that people have been reprimanded for similar personal attacks. It doesn't matter that he is a admin or that you are an admin - this sort of condescending personal attack on other editors isn't acceptable (as I've learned from my own past experience). To then remove the warning from his page as "trolling" is offensive in the extreme, and arguably a violation of WP:VAND. I have a legitimate issue with him name-calling other editors as "feeble" in the course of an AfD discussion. This has nothing whatever to do with the fact that he holds a different position, I have pointed out that other "inclusionists" have behaved in an uncivil manner on recent AfDs. I also feel it inappropriate to use the patina of adminship to somehow justify his personally attacking other editors by calling them "feeble". I implore you to consider objectively whether or not, in the course of an AfD discussion, referring to other editors as "feeble" is appropriate, especially from an editor with such a long-standing history as Geogre.--Nicodemus75 23:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you are never going to agree and there's no sense stoking the argument. Neither of you is going to benefit by fighting, both of you are long-term good faith contributors. Walk away, it is just not worth the trouble. Just zis Guy you know? 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, you might be interested in this MfD which is a consequence of threats by User:Tim Smith and User:DrL to have me blocked, subsequent to the recent deletion review on CTMU in which we both participated. (I think they have misread the relevant policies.) ---CH 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me I'm not crazy

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Corvino? Interested in an outside comment. It has links to two other AFDs and three other articles (two deleted, but still in Google cache). Looks to me like we keep debating the same article. Fan-1967 03:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the repost and closed it. Let me know if you see it pop up again. Just zis Guy you know? 09:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion: Talk:British Shorthair

Another user has added the NEDM/Happycat information into the British Shorthair "Famous British Shorthairs" subsection. In an effort to prevent another revert war over this, I have moved the debate into the Article's Talk Page. Your opinion and vote would be greatly appreciated. --Targetter 04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich?=

Bufordhollis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Robert Morey.

I deleted the repost, but I don't think this is actually Gastrich. Just zis Guy you know? 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Corvino

Is it your contention that "generic associate professor"s speak to over 100 university campuses ? Wjhonson 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not uncommon. Lecture tours and all. Just zis Guy you know? 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo Two

User WikiWoo (talk · contribs) seems to have a thing about Ontario regional government bureaucrats. I first noticed that he (or she) has recreated the AfD'ed David Szwarc as a redirect to Madarins of Regional Government in Ontario (sic), and in checking his (or her) contributions uncovered what seems to be a walled garden in support of Ontario regional government bureaucrats. I mean, "Senior administrators" as a redirect to Madarins of Regional Government in Ontario (sic)? It look slike admin assistance is required, and as you've apparently dealt with him before... --Calton | Talk 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo and his new pages

Okay, I think it's about time he get a very long block. He's recreated the recently deleted David Szwarc, Mitch Zamojc and Roger Maloney and redirected them (along with Senior administrators to Madarins (sic) of Regional Government in Ontario. He obviously has no regard for any rules here. OzLawyer 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Schools/Arguments

Can you hop over to Wikipedia talk:Schools/Arguments#Blanking? Rob is persisting with this vandalism nonsense, to the point where he's edit warring with popups. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: I appreciate that you're trying to be "fair" as you perceive it. However, we all know that if I were to go over to WP:BEEFSTEW, redirect it to WP:SCHOOL, then after that action was reversed, open an MfD on it, then when the consensus was developing on that MFD to retain the contents of the page (what else is there to retain, I might ask?) was clearly forming, to go ahead and REPEATEDLY blank the contents while the MfD is still pending I would earn myself a block faster than you can spell B-E-E-F-S-T-E-W. I understand that "admins stick together" around here and all that, but the fact is that AMIB is acting unilaterally and in opposition to the clear consensus developing at the MfD in question. I find it troubling that the only thing you seem to be able to say is: "Come back in 24h". You know quite well that any regular editor would not be able to get away with this clearly disruptive behavior. Irrespective of all other considerations, blatantly blanking a page while it is under consideration for MfD is vandalism, plain and simple. It is no wonder that so many users on wikipedia today complain that the collegiality of admins has become a pernicious cloak for their bad behavior.--Nicodemus75 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicodemus, the obduracy of you and a small group of others has stymied any attempt to come to a compromise, and you have effectively implemented a rule which goes entirely against long-standing policy and guidelines - in no other area would stub articles which are simply a restatement of te article title be tolerated, let alone tenaciously defended at AfD by reference to an essay which failed to achieve consensus for adoption as a guideline. It takes a great deal of work to wind up A Man In Black, but you have succeeded. With luck things will calm down, but this wil not happen as long as you continue pouring petrol on the flames. Just zis Guy you know? 07:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an article against consensus

You deleted the article David Walsh (sports reporter). You had been edit warring there and violated the rules about biographies of living people. You showed no willingness to resolve the conflict. I had asked for a third opinion, you ignore it and delete the article even though your suggestion to merge it had failed. You can delete my messages as "trolling" but you cannot deny that you abuse your administrative powers. Socafan 23:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I deleted nothing, I redirected Walsh and Ballester to an article which included the text which was otherwise virttually identical between the two, there being almost nothing in either of them other than the book. There was no consensus to merge to Armstrong, but no consensus is needed to merge two article which have dulplicate content. In fact, it's encouraged. No admin tools were used. Just zis Guy you know? 07:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to write a rouge anthem eventually, you know. RasputinAXP c 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Thanks for clearing up the messy layout. You got there before me. Tyrenius 12:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Clarification

On your Deletion Review vote on Jim Shapiro, you mentioned that you thought WP:BLP be clarified. I'm curious as to what you mean by that. I agree with your vote on this deleted article. How could the BLP be better clarified? Thanks.jawesq 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was blanked, I believe. I have started a discussion on whether it is necessary to explicitly include project space in WP:BLP, specifically the nuke-on-soght policy for unsourced negative comments, since at present it could be read as excluded. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo yet again

WikiWoo has now recreated the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario, this time named Regional Government Structure in Ontario. OzLawyer 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hammertime. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

The Barnstar of Diligence

In recognition of your work in helping to keep Wikipedia free of original research, POV-pushing and vandalism, I award you this Barnstar of Diligence. OzLawyer 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scourge of Solihull

I realise you may be busy, but could you have a look at the article at Andrew Howlett? - I've stuck a db-hoax on it, but given the amount of effort that has gone into it I doubt it will go without a fight, and I am unusually busy for the next few weeks.

Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Aquilina 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked per WP:BLP and the snowball clause (obvious hoax, the picture was Kenneth Williams) Just zis Guy you know? 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your rapid mopping! Aquilina 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acadame North

I respect your opinion but I do not agree, I am not doing this in 'Vanity' as you stated [please view wikipedia's personnel attacks policy] I am writing these articles for Socialism! You would not be here today if the glorious red army did not march in to Berlin in WW2, Do not disgrace Josip Broz Tito his Partisans Freed us! Acadame North honors that! You are acting like a Fascist! Do you no why Capitalism has failed? The League of Communists in Yugoslavia maintained a Orthodox religious community, loyal to god and their nation! Shame on you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acadamenorth (talk • contribs) 21:26, July 31, 2006.

Thanks

Thank you very much for tackling the user who seems to me to have been trying to turn this place into Spankiwankipedia. It was about time someone did. I wish you luck of it as I am not sure he listens, but if it works, then great. JuniorJetKaptain 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(note to self: Fastifex (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log))

Barnstar

Many thanks. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 05:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizm and Lies by You

I am about to start an arbitration proceeding against you because of your vandalism and lies.

User:JzG has lied about me. He wrote: "User:Sam Sloan recently poosted on Usenet that he has re-created every chess player article of his which has been deleted." There is not much here to establish the importance of the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geoffrey_Borg[reply]

This is an outrageous lie. I have never made and such statement on usenet or anywhere else.

Administrators who lie should be blocked and removed from Wikipedia. I demand that this be done.

Because of these lies by Louis Blair and User:JzG about five good articles have been deleted from Wikipedia and even "salted the earth". Another 30 or more articles have been vandalized by User:JzG. For Example, Geoffrey_Borg is Vice-President of the World Chess Federation, an organization of 159 member nations and thus is clearly a notable person within the standards of Wikipedia. Ali_Nihat_Yazici is President of the Turkish Chess Federation, an organization of 125,000 members and is the subject of an article in the current issue of ChessBase Magazine and thus is clearly a notable person. Both artocles were deleted by User:JzG

The vandalism by User:JzG of these obviously notable persons plus his lie about me is more than suffieient ground to get User:JzG kicked out of Wikipedia.

I have just been elected to the Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation and you can expect to receive a strongly worded letter soon if this miscxonduct is not corrected. Sam Sloan 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pick better examples. Here's your admission on Usenet to the action you deny above: [23], and from the deletion log for Geoffrey Borg

10:48, July 27, 2006 Proto (talk • contribs) deleted "Geoffrey Borg" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Borg)
04:14, March 19, 2006 Luigi30 (talk • contribs) deleted "Geoffrey Borg" (We are Geoffrey of Borg. You will be deleted.)

I guess the "vandalism" of which you speak is the removal of links to your website, which you added. WP:EL says do not add links to websites you own. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional counties" of Scotland

The County Watch and ABC are at it yet again: trying to claim that Scotland has "traditional counties". We knocked that myth on the head last year, when we merged the Traditional counties of Scotland article with the Administrative counties of Scotland article. Well now they are trying to say that the situation in Scotland and England is equivalent, see Template_talk:Scotland_counties#Merger. It is not. I am sick to the back teeth of this. Can you please keep an eye on the situation? --Mais oui! 09:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]