User talk:JzG/Archive 8

RFA Thanks

Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my recent RFA. It passed 53/1/2 and I am now an administrator. I appreciate that some of you made exceptions to your usual requirements re length of service and so on because we've interracted positively in the past, or because of my credentials, so I will endeavour to use my new mop cautiously. I'm always open to feedback and gently constructive criticism. If you're not an admin and need some assistance do of course please let me know. Thanks again --kingboyk 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

Sam Sloan

He's my Jason Gastrich, except that I'm not being condemned to hell for my actions. :) howch e ng {chat} 07:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zap!

I've replied to your note, on my talk page, and am now totally negating the efficiency of that by telling you this here ; )

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hey JzG, FYI [1] [2] regards, FloNight ^talk 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Abduction RE.:

I was referring to one Whitley Strieber. I've encountered things myself that would scare Stephen King, Clive Barker and Wes Craven when I was a kid, and on top of that, had to contend with trigger happy idiots at the same time the former was going on. While travelling "Out West" as a gold prospector, people had told me that IF there is alien contact, the whole planet will erupt in rebellions, some for religious reasons, such as "Its the Devil comming to get our souls and the Govt. works for Satan !", some will rebel out of revenge due to the protocol initiated by the Robertson Panel protocol and/or the Brookings Report, both of which are still in effect. Part of the Robertson Panel protocol uses psychiatrists, so that people who spot UFOs and/or aliens, and the like, have a interest in these "forbidden" matters look like fools and idiots. The Robertson Panel was initiated by the CIA to "reduce", if not eliminate any and all interest, suppress any and all UFO and/or alien reports.I have some police and military contacts as well who have told me a few things. Martial Law :)

Is that a grassy knoll I see over yonder? Just zis Guy you know? 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, Ever hear about the "Magic Bullet" that hit JFK in the head(Seen the tapes) from the front, then circled around and hit the Texas governor ? While investigating a bigfoot incident, some idiot threatened to shoot me IF I was one of those (polite) "skeptics". People see strange things, they do not appreciate other people implying they're lying. Due to WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Profanity, I can't state what I've found here. Martial Law 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Have you seen/encountered something strange ? Did you report it ? If you did, you'll see what I'm referring to. I've investigated the Roswell Incident, the Phoenix Lights matter, the Fouke Monster matter(where some armed idiot thought I was a "skeptic"), the Gulf Breeze UFO incident, and some not so famous paranormal matters as well. Wikipedia Protocol does not allow me to list here what I've found at all. Martial Law 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

The thing that has always amazed me about the Roswell Conspiracy is that the Government have supposedly somehow managed to keep it completely leak-free, something they have failed to do in so many other cases (from Watergate on up). I apply Occam's Razor: when absolutely everybody in authority points to a prosaic explanation, why theorise something for which no credible evidence exists? Of course, Douglas Adams had another take on it: teasers, rich kids with nothign better to do than land in some uninhabited spot and strut up and down in fonrt of some poor sod who nobody is going to believe making "beep-beep" noises and wearing silly antennae on their heads. Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm currently located at, you dress up as a alien, Bigfoot, and come to a rural area, you might as well make out your Will. Out here, people will shoot at something like that, and at all intruders. I'm in a rural area at this time. While I was monitoring a Bigfoot incident in the Ozarks in Arkansas, a news person asked a local about it being someone in a Bigfoot suit. He (polite) said that had better not be going on or the (polite) idiot will end up dead. You'll be amazed when hoaxers report that some "redneck" tried to shoot at them, and the hoaxer is in some kind of costume, be it alien or bigfoot. Martial Law 02:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Wiki-Links

If you are referring to my collection of Wiki-links, they allow instant access to various Wiki protocol, incl. WP:NOT. Martial Law 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Some Articles

Can you help with Dhimmi , Jizya , Rules of war in Islam , People of the Book , & now Kafir. Its one user with a severe anti-Islamic POV , who is insistent on pushing his POV . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 13:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the problem? There are a lot of strong opinons in evidence on those pages. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Million Dollar Homepage

The problem was that in the list you left there were 2 articles present that had been consistently added by the same vandal, namely numbers 12 and 15. These had been consistently readded so I took the action of removing the whole list to try to make it less likely for people to put their own knock-off sites on there. Just felt that my actions needed explaining, my problem wasn't with the list per se, so much as what it invited people to do and what they did to it. Mallocks 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's hilarious that they were adding their sites to a list demonstrating the futility of the knock-offs on the Talk page of an article; I guess nobody expects a spamming copycat to be especially bright :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is somewhat mystifying what they expected to achieve, they got my visit to the page to see if it was linkspam, but other than that I shouldn't think they've had a single hit. Mystifying. Mallocks 16:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admins

Our of curiosity, why Rouge not Rogue? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From some past comments - as a mis-spellign it amuses me :-) See some examples Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help needed....

I just finished my first contribution (found here), but the title is not what I wanted (It should be Todd Michael Schwartzman, with all names capitalized, not Todd michael schwartzman, as it currently is). How would I fix this? Thanks for your help.

--Commander Cool, part deux 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I feel stupid. I went back to the page and immediately noticed the whole "Move" button. Huh. Well, at least I get the sweet satisfaction of having figured it out by myself, if only to accompany the bitter disappointment in my personal powers of observation.

Thanks anyway,

--Commander Cool, part deux 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's common enough - there is even a Wiki folklore around it, Geogre's Law :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked

On what do you base that a "self-published book" is somehow inferior or that I am the writer? Thanks for the compliment by the way. There are many of us in our reading group who enjoyed reading this book. You cite no credible rationale for deletion. To the excellent point made by Xoloz re. the notion of a self-published book like Spiked being popularly Googled. Beck's readers seem to endorse the book if their comments at various on-line booksellers are to be believed. American Library Association interview appears to us more impartial source than much consumer media publicity generated by commercial interest groups. See if a careful consideration of the evidence suggests not just withdrawing your notion of deletion but supporting Spiked as an entry. Malundi 8 March 2006

Who said you were the writer? It's a self-published book, though. I checked the publication details. And that alone is credible rationale for deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Colleges

New white washing at Oxford Graduate school[3] (no relation to the UK school). It seems the person doesn't want it to be known that the school is unaccredited and has 100 students via the US mail service. Making this drama more interesting is this[4]. Arbusto 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More at Ruckman. Check user for User:24* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Arbusto 21:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- 24.*'s writing style is slightly unique, I don't think it is a sock of anyone. JoshuaZ 21:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit war and personal attacks at Talk:First Baptist Church of Hammond. Kamlia did exactly what you told him not to do. Also check your email. Arbusto 08:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Wiki

Hello JzG. I was wondering if you would in interested in a new wiki I'm working on about depression. I see you mention depression on your user page, so you might like to know about the Depression Wikicity. It's part of Wikicities, a project of Jimbo and Angela, but quite a new part so there is a lot to do! I'm hoping it will be come a real resource for people with depression. If you are interested, please come along and see if you can add to the site, it would be great to see more names there. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll be along. Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll bring my Dosulepin hydrochloride with me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not for school

I'm not sure where to express this on the talk page — I'll work it in later — but removing the {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}} from the page eliminates the air of official policy, and cuts the ferocity of my opposition dramatically. Thanks. ×Meegs 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it belongs as it was started, as a gentle and mildly humorous way of pointing out that, well, Wikipedia is really not for things made up in school one day. The edits after UncleG's last seemed to em to be trying to turn it into WP:NOTABILITY, which we already ave, and subverting its intention of addressing a certain clearly identified class of bad article ideas. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Deleted Edits

Just wondering if you knew what exactly counts as a deleted edit? It is editing a page then having the page deleted, or having a edit reveted? Mike _{(T C)} 02:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A deleted edit is where you delete the page and then restore it minus the disputed version. This does not, as far as I know, allow the deleted edit to be picked out of either the edit history or the deleted history. Just zis Guy you know? 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm so I have 88 deleted edits? Would this be because of newpage patrol and CSDing articles?? Mike _{(T C)}

07:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, yes. Where did you get 88 from? Just zis Guy you know? 08:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit count tool: Deleted edits 87, you have Deleted edits 453. I just thought it was high, after seeing yours it is defently not! Thanks! Mike _{(T C)}

19:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi! You mentioned in another discussion that you didn't think FORscene was notable. As it does meet the current notability guidelines, please can you let me know what else you would be looking for. Stephen B Streater 11:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal notabiltiy threshold is above community norm. Like I said, feel free to create the article, if you do it may be nominated for AfD - which is no big deal because if it does meet the guidelines it won't get deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 12:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. You can see what happened last time in the AfD. You can see the article for yourself, as you are an admin. People didn't like me writing the article, because I wrote some of the software (VSCA) - you are not the only one with higher standards than the guidelines! If you have time, I would appreciate some criticism of the article itself though. Stephen B Streater 13:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the article's Talk page.

Trying to end the war before it starts

I would like to register my disappointment at your last edit to the Association of British Counties;

Owain may agree with their agenda, but the material included was referenced and sourced at the end (and not all from the ABC website either); unless you can refute them, they have right to stand.
the references given at the bottom were useful for the entire article. Even if you did not agree with the edits made to the body, you should have let these stand, or incorporated them otherwise. Please check and be able to justify each individual sub-edit you revert.
wholesale reverts on controversial topics should be preceded by discussion on the talk page. In your capacity as admin, you try to discourage edit wars - the best way to do this is by example. I'm doing my best to get mediators involved/get discussion going/..etc, and offical support would be incredibly welcome.

Overall, a partial edit of Owain's work was needed, but that is not what was given. Please could I ask you to go back and reconsider and re-edit as appropriate?

Also in your capacity as admin: the anonymous user editing this page is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Irate=User:IanDavies=... (earlier edits from similar ip's from Bulldog, Manchester were blocked as such by User:David Gerard). As you are taking an active interest in this particular article, please could you watch out for these sockpuppets and use temporary bans as appropriate? It makes more sense than trying to get otherwise unrelated admins involved every time via the admin incidents noticeboard.

This is a small and fairly insignificant issue in British politics, but it is an issue all the same. I'm trying to edit usefully, within the editing rules and with rigorous citation and justification; I just don't want to see the good work getting drowned out in avoidable edit battles.

Many thanks, Aquilina 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the content, and it seemsd to me that Owain had replaced a number of statements which were fair comment with some uncritical admiration for ABC, an organisation whose significance I am still unable to verify from any reliable sources (there has been, as far as I can tell, no significant coverage in the British national press, for example). It was that simple. The significance of the issue is not the same as the significance of the group, this much should be obvious.

I am still waiting for some details on what my agenda is supposed to be here. Given that Owain has an interest in Monmouthshire (form his contribs list) it seems highly likely that the two hits on the BBC for ABC, [5] and [6], both feedback comments, both pushing ABC, calling the archaic counties "the real counties" and so on, may be more revealing of Owain's bias than mine. Meanwhile there is still no verifiable evidence of significance, no evidence of coverage in mainstream media, and two BBC stories specifically did not mention the group, it was Owain Vaughan who did that in the feedback. Some might think that significant. Just zis Guy you know? 18:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owain actually removed very little material - most of his edit was in addition to the standing article. You have added a significant amount of WP:OR to the article, which I will challenge you to find sources for. As you have not replaced the links to sources, but not justified your deletion of them, I shall do so myself now.

You may disagree with Owain's POV, and there isn't an abundance of evidence - but in the few cases where he can back up his POV with citation, his edits should stand.

Most of my comments about your edit still stand, whatever the group's significance Aquilina 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I read both versions. It is not OR to mention that they were namechecked by one MP (it's in Hansard), that their membership is unstated (check the website), that the counties movement exists (see County Watch), that their impact is unknown absent media reports (give me the media reports, Owain hasn't managed yet), that the movement will not achieve its aims in the present climate (no party has it in their manifesto, not even the more quixotic ones like Goldsmith's mob). All this is verifiable. Unlike any claim to notability of ABC, which scores not significantly better on Google than I do. Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between not stating something on a website, and not stating - you have not proved it isn't available elsewhere, and I've changed the article to reflect this.

I have challenged several points of fact - if we can get inline references for these, then the article will be much more difficult for anyone to challenge. It's a slightly more rigorous standard of proof than is set for most articles, but seeing as its contentious it is necessary.

But as regards

The traditional counties movement is generally recognised as having little chance of achieving its objective in the current British political climate.^{[citation needed]}

- it's a statement I fully agree with, but I also know it's POV/OR. I was going to delete it out of hand but realised the following: if it's that generally held a belief, however, there'll be no problem finding evidence to back it up...

We are not arguing about notability here (that if anything was partially settled by the AfD...) I just want both sides backing upclaims with evidence - and on the rare occasion this happens, but gets deleted, some good reasons why. Aquilina 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, there is absolutely no credible evidence that this organisation is in any way significant and if we don't say that in some form then the article will be seriously biased. As to the fact of their having little chance, it is not POV, it's a fact. We can re-state it as "no political party has taken it up" or whatever, it remains vital context. How else will non-British readers know that this is never going to happen? NPOV absolutely requires that the article make it clear that this is a fringe view with little or no mainstream support. I am open to any decent suggestions as to how best to state that, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the point needs making, but we can't resort to OR to do it. I just want both sides to explicitly cite as much as possible - it's hard to edit war when every arguable sentence has a source link at the end of it! As it is though, the edit you made (saying it isn't referred to in any manifestos) works really well - it's nice and easily verifiable, and makes the point without any editorial analysis from us.

If you could link to something showing there's been little/no media coverage, that would be good too - however, proving an absence of information is quite hard, and I'm not a fan of google news whatsoever - its coverage of UK regional media is pretty awful - I've tried to use it to catch up on big events in places I used to live, with no success. (Most of the local sites it links to only receive the small amount of regional feed that the big (inter)nationals like AP/Reuters/... produce. I'd love them to link to some of the smaller local newspaper sites)

On a related note, could I ask you again to please block sockpuppets of User:Irate which edit this article? It makes a complete mockery of the ruling (the strongest possible in WP) if it's not enforced where possible by the admins. Assuming good faith as much as possible, Owain does provide some useful stuff, even if some of it requires rephrasing and npoving, and is trying to find sources to back up this and other articles - I don't want to see editors like him hounded out by the personal attacks and reverts of someone who shouldn't be editing at all, full stop. Thanks for your help, Aquilina 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems to me that the article (as I last saw it) is becoming acceptably neutral. Owain seems to be co-operating in that - albeit his last edits I saw were to assert that two parties had adopted this agenda, when neither has it in the manifesto; that means the wording might have been sloppy, so it now says it's not in the manifesto of any British party, and that is unequivocally verifiable, so a brief wrangle has ended up with a watertight and factual statement, which is a good outcome when people disagree over something. It gets reduced to what is verifiable. I have no problem with that.

Yes I agree, the explicit in-line quoting of sources is going to be a prerequisite for further additions to the material. Incidentally, the English Democrats do mention on their website that they are in favour of the reinstation of the pre-1974 boundaries for administration purposes, but I have seen no evidence that they have acted on this at all. Moreover, lukewarm completely-latent support from the mighty English Democrats is hardly a credential worthy of the article(!)

Are the socks the anon IPs? I will go and look into that. My tolerance for sockpuppets is somewhere betwen zero and none at all. Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, mainly the ones beginning 84.9.xxx.xxx, but the odd other too. User:David Gerard blocked a few after his last name account (IanDavies) was blocked eg [7] and [8], but the time it takes longer to get a response through AN/I than it does for him to change IP (understandably, there's a lot of stuff on AN/I to deal with!). Aquilina 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky, there's a mixture of edits. If it happens much more I will think about sprotecting it, but the vandalism seems to be at a low level, albeit irritating. IP blocks are more problematic than account blocks. Just zis Guy you know? 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits themselves are irritating, but the personal attacks and allegations are distressing. Sprotecting does help, that would be very welcome. However, most of the time he just waits until it's lifted and starts again, and in-between he shifts on to his other favourite articles. Temporarily blocking the ip's for short periods (<24hrs) works just as well as sprotecting at protecting the ABC article, and stops him editing and causing trouble at other articles too. I understand there may be problems with other editors on the same ip, but there hasn't been before, and that could be dealt with as-and-when. But the call's yours - thanks for your help either way! Aquilina 00:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be polite

Your comments on Talk:Simon Wessely are not up to the standards I like to see on Wikipedia. Remember, we are Wikipedians. We do not engage in fights with outside groups. We just write the articles. If anyone behaves inappropriately towards us, we should respond with graciousness and kindness even under extreme provocation. :) --Jimbo Wales 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, they published my personal data on their website, spammed me and all but called me the Antichrist, it got under my skin a bit. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales, I find your comment to be somewhat patronizing here. First of all, we as Wikipedians do much, much more than "just write the articles", and you of all people should know this. Secondly, you failed to point out precisely which comments were "not up to the standards I like to see on Wikipedia". If you can't be more specific, how do you expect this person as a contributor to improve? His reactions were well within the realm of reason if you ask me. Silensor 22:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to step in to make it really clear that JzG is an excellent contributor who has in fact done excellent work on helping with the One Click article. I also emailed him privately to commend him on his fine work. My comment was simply about one particular negative statement, he knew the one I was talking about. I don't see any reason for JzG to improve in general, it's just that all of us, even me of course, can use feedback when we are a bit too harsh. JzG is great and I didn't mean my comments to reflect negatively on him at all. --Jimbo Wales 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, now you've gone and embarrassed me... Just zis Guy you know? 21:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's right, I was tetchy. But actually I was just admitting to a POV, which is allowed, it didn't occur to em that it was wrong to describe what they did as being offensive. One Click are not nice, even after you've made allowances for them being ill. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nourhaghighi

Would you please take a look at Nourhaghighi and related AFD? There surely has to be a speedy deletion criteria which covers this but I'm not sure what. If there isn't there should be! :) --kingboyk 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that surely needed to be gone. I left some comments, hopefullly the author will read them. Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/List of ...For Dummies books

Hi, JzG. You voted to support my AfD nomination of List of O'Reilly books. There is a similar, and much more contested nomination for AfD/List of ...For Dummies books. Would you be willing to vote for deletion there as well, to help turn the tide? Much apprecitated, Rynne 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to be a fan of solicitations to participate in AfDs, but that list does really suck! Just zis Guy you know? 00:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on the use of the title "Dr."

How do we create a policy that wikipedia abides by the academic standard usage of the title "Dr" so users can reference this during controversy/editting wars? So users know that honorary doctorates and unaccredited doctorates do not get to use the title "Dr." Arbusto 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to go int he manual of style, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about doing that? Arbusto 23:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page at WP:MOS I guess, or raise it at the Village Pump policy page? Guessing here, mind. Just zis Guy you know? 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added my comments[9]. Arbusto 03:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion

Guy, I have noticed your work on AfD before and would like your opinion on Workplace networking. At first glance it might seem to be a legitimate article, but I believe a thorough reading shows that it is some kind of elaborate joke. I haven't done the AfD myself, but I would like your opinon on the article. Thanks. --Hetar 04:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a thinly disguised attack page. Now cleaned up. Just zis Guy you know? 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

I've initiated a user conduct RfC (my first and, I hope, last). You had some contact with User:Dzonatas at WP:3RR. What's the proper procedure for notifying other editors that an RfC has started? I've posted this as a query to the RfC talk page and another administrator's talk page and received no guidance. The RfC needs cert

ification from at least one other user in 48 hours. I don't want to be accused of canvassing for opposition to him (if that's a bad thing) or of failing to notify appropriate people (if I'm supposed to do that). Please advise. Durova 17:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to leave a note on the Talk page of the affected user, and I would normally think it appropriate to bring it to the attention of any other editors who are named in the RfC as part of the dispute (on either side). It is also reasonable to note it on the Talk page of any articles which are focal points of the dispute. You will also see that some people may come along and endorse the complaint because they watch the RfC page. Stick to the facts, link diffs wherever possible, be fair at all times and acknowledge your own faults if such their be. State up front any biases you may have. RfCs can get very heated, do not be drawn into slanging matches.

On closer inspection, much of the meat of the fC seems to be founded on the assumption that Dzonatas and Jhballard are one and the same. I don't think that is necessarily proven (unless I've missed some evidence somewhere) so I have requested a CheckUser. Just zis Guy you know? 19:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi its Slayerx675 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

the script which i put on is my gcse drama exam, which i need to get on my account at school, so i decided to host it on wikipeia beacasue a lot of websites are disalloed but wiki isn't. so i just need it to put on da comp in skool tnks Slayerx675 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I'm glad it was worth the effort of userfying, thanks for stopping by :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning on my page

Sorry, but could you please explain better what you wrote. I am not sure I understand what you mean by "neutral". Please use the Holodomor discussion page for this. Thanks.--Andrew Alexander 02:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A gift for you

...from Arbusto - Mark_Wallace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll give you the honour of reviewing and extending my block :) --kingboyk 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see no benefit frmo allowing that one ever to come back. I put the requisite tags on the User and Talk pages, you should try to put the {block} tag on the Talk page and note the exiry tiime when you block accounts, even blatant vandals. Just zis Guy you know? 08:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. That's the first one I've done which wasn't straightforward {{test5}}, in all the excitement I plain didn't think about formalities. --kingboyk 09:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of list songs

Enjoy! :) --kingboyk 11:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! Why do these people never start by defining what constitutes a list song? We had no article on list songs to act as a definition, so we can't possibly have a list of them because we haven't defined what constitutes an entry for the list, or indeed why anyone should care. Why does nobody ever start with the encyclopaedic content and then start discussing examples and finally a list? Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like it. --kingboyk 12:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you online?

If you are and if you could spare a few minutes, could you review this for me please? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Sorry to bother you. --kingboyk 14:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rouge Admins

I laughed myself silly again. Makes me want to be a Rouge Admin too :P RasputinAXP c 17:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ras... I didn't know you were a Gilbert and Sullivan fan. Well played... er, sung. I wanna be a rouge NON admin... ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This week I are been mainly singing "When I was a lad I served a term"; also the Major-General's song. :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm not a fan, but I'm certainly aware of it, and have been involved in a few productions, but The Yeomen of the Guard is my favorite ;) RasputinAXP c

21:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review

Your comments at deletion review regarding Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) are confusing, and also fail to address the issue of whether there was a deletion consensus in the original deletion. I happen to think the process is wrong on this one, and that a nationally published cartoonist is notable. No arguments to counter that were made, and it seems unreasonable to delete on such a basis. I would hope you reconsider your comments, and I apologise for hassling you in this way. Steve block talk 12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm always happy to discuss my reasons. I read the deleted article and the AfD; it strikes me that very little has changed in respect of the subject since the AfD closed, whether or not you believe the AfD debate considered the additional data you provided (which in my experience it likely did). There is quite a bit of history here of pushing by User:DollyD, which account has virtually no history outside of this one subject so is likely either connected with the creator, or a sock or role account of someone. So I think the best thing to do is wait a while to let the dust settle, then create a new and encyclopaedic article and note on the Talk page that this is a new treatment of the subject with additional data. There is no rush here, no deadline to met. If Alexander really is notable then he will be doing new work all the time, and the more of this is verifiable from reliable sources the clearer the decision becomes. Otherwise all that will happen is that someone will come along and AfD it again, which is not a good result for anybody. Just zis Guy you know? 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play. I agree with the wait a while more than the rest. I'm of a mind that the eventual answer is a List of Australian cartoonists and comics creators. Thanks for discussing, and happy editing. Steve block talk 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction appropriate?

Here are my posts in the software notability debate which all declare an interest in software I have written:

8<--- snipped, is at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (software) (sorry, but my Talk is getting big again and I only archived last week!) --->8

Response also at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (software) Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. It's resolved OK (and lost its formatting when I copied it anyway). Stephen B Streater 08:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. I knew deep down you were a reasonable person :-) Stephen B Streater 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn, now you've gone and blown my reputation as a rouge admin.... Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With tag lines like "that anyone can edit", I don't think you'll be short of work. Stephen B Streater 08:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bambenek deletion review

I thought this might interest you: User:Alpha269 has spammed the most recent group of brand-spankin' new admins to come and vote on the deletion review for John Bambenek. Even more interesting is that this editor is explicitly asking the newest, least experienced administrators (myself included) to come weigh in on this issue. I, for my part, am staying out of this, as being cold-called to weigh in because of my lack of experience seems too fishy for me. But I thought this should be brought to the attention of someone else involved in the discussion. Truly, JDoorj a m Talk 05:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't call on me! Is that a compliment or am I not worth the time? hmm... --kingboyk 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It backfired a bit :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, most amusing! --kingboyk 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I think you're pretty well known by now in spammer/foamer circles as "DS", so why would he bother? Either that or you're thought to be no longer among the least experienced (queue Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced)... When do you start flying the Rouge admin flag, by the way? ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once I've found a criteria to speedy delete Lego, that's when! :P --kingboyk 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see you in hell first, mate. They're the most notable thing I've ever met the owner of. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not for school, again, sorry

Guy, the Wikipedia subcat guideline template was recently restored to the page. Before contacting the editor, or starting another discussion on the talk page, I wanted to ask you two things:

Is there a process or centralized discussion for the use of that template? I can't find any, and guidelines are not strictly official policy, so I guess disagreement over its use boils down to a regular-old content dispute. If this is to be labeled as a guideline, it seems to me that it needs to receive much wider scrutiny than it has. WP:Notability has gone a long time without this stamp.
As it is, what would you think of tagging it with Template:wikipedia essay? A void at the top may continue to attract edits.

Thanks. ×Meegs 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, guidelines are supposed to go through the proposal process. This has not, so it should either be tagged as an essay, a proposal, or nothing. ×Meegs 20:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay. Look at things like WP:BALLS, WP:VSCA and so on. It's not to be taken seriously, it's a way of defusing the pain, a clue-bat wrapped in a joke. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages

Hi JzG, I've replied over at Depression Wikicity. I don't know how I missed your message until now! Sorry about that :) --sannse (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hi there. I can't work out what happened to my recent request to have my user page restored. Can you help point me at the right place to look, as I seem to remember that you took an interest. Thanks J1838 23:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to go over to User Talk:CesarB and ask for unprotection. If you can satisfy CesarB that you won't re-create the attack page, then you might get to have another go in calmer and more neutral terms. Long-standing editors in good standing get a certain amount of slack when putting contentious views on their User pages, but brand-new users whose first edits are to create rants attacking other editors get pretty short shrift. Just zis Guy you know? 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Marshal Of The Air Force of the Russian Federation

Thank you for speedy deleting the article, but it seems you did not protect it so editing is still possible... --DmitryKo 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Server was not responsive at the time. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1998 Volvo V70.jpg

Please add a source for this photo. Thanks! -SCEhard T 03:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.196.139.250

Hey this guy has done it again. Apparently your warning was not enough. He has posted numerous other messages on my talk page and elsewhere. Aucaman^Talk 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge

Would it be okay to merge University of the Nations and University of the Nations at Kona together? Arbusto 04:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Probably a bit of a mess, I'm not terribly good at these things yet, but at least there's only one article now. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[10] and see the Maybe, but it is unaccredited talk at the WR Uni page. Arbusto 11:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I would have thought leaving a stub at University of the Nations at Kona would have added value, particularly regarding categorisation, ie Category:Education in Hawaii. -- Paul foord 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That can be added to the existing article anyway, since it acknowledges that as its largest base. The two were very similar, and right now there is enough pain keeping the whitewash off one article without making it two. Just zis Guy you know? 18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe me what exactly is considered as spam and what is not ?

Hi !

you have deleted my edits about PIM and contact managers. I agree my edits can be considered as "promotion", buit in my opinion it is not spam. For example in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_personal_information_managers, there is a list of PIM. why can't OD4Contact be listed there ? why are some products listed there and some are banned ?

Most of my edits are simply describing what OD4Contact is: a professional PIM. I've never written something like "this is the best software ever, the others are crap" ... i just want this product to be listed, like some others (MS Entourage, Act! which are *direct* competitors)

Because i'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, would you mind replying by email too? please reply at altimac@carrafix.com, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.253.167 (talk • contribs) 17:55, March 17, 2006

See WP:SPAM, specifically the section on external link spamming. You added a web link (not a Wiki link) to eight articles, many of which have no other web links at all, only wiki links. This is generally considered a Bad Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link, i'll avoid direct linking to the website, but open a new WP section, with an external link at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altimac (talk • contribs)

This may not be the solution either. People don't like you creating articles about your own products. Things must be famous before they get here - in which case someone else will write the article at some point. If it gets deleted, don't take it personally! Stephen B Streater 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just zis Guy you know? 18:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattrick

I've closed this as a speedy keep citing WP:POINT. The nominator's sole edits were to that AFD, and it would seem to be a response to the recent deletion through AFD of two other articles. I hope this is agreeable. --kingboyk 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered doing the same. Normally any AfD with many keeps and no deletes other than the nominator can be closed as speedy keep after a decent interval; in this case there was at least one good-faith delete (albeit weak). But the article patently passes WP:WEB, the nomination was as you say WP:POINT and I would say an early close is uncontentious. Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Why on earth was the article deleted?? SouthernComfort 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the deletion log and I have to say, I am appalled. You had no cause to delete an article about an actual person started by an experienced WP editor. I had no idea that an article about him had been started before and that it had been deleted (which I most emphatically disagree with, since he is a verifiable human being - enough reason on WP to keep the article). It will have to be restarted and if you want it deleted then, it should be put to another vote since I did not do a "repost" as was claimed in your edit summary. SouthernComfort 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted by consensus. If you have new evidence of notability over and above what was debated really quite recently, please take it to WP:DRV. Some of us are getting a bit fed up with subjects that are endlessly re-created until eventually a no-consensus AfD keeps them. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it is common enough. Just zis Guy you know? 10:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebEx

Guy, I added content to WebEx article re: Zeleny/Zhu dispute and other legal disputes. I tried to write as FM and I discussed. May need some rewording to cover everyone's issues. Look at it as see what you think. FloNight ^talk 04:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Just zis Guy you know? 10:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of registered charities and patient organisation names

Guy, could I ask that you clarify on the discussion page which organisation you are refering to on Talk:Simon Wessely where you say "...the mainstream groups 25% and ME Action"? I assume the first refers to the 25% ME Group, however, there is no patient group or registered charity called "ME Action". Please clarify whether you mean the registered charity patient organisation AfME (Action for ME); the registered charity patient organisation The ME Association (MEA) or the internet campaigning group which maintains a website and discussion forum, "MEActionUK" which is not a registered charity? MEagenda 08:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be right over. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the clarification to Talk:Simon Wessely. I was also pleased to see that you are comfortable with the registered charity the 25% ME Group as being a valid source of evidence of opposition to Wessely and the "Wessely School". MEagenda 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've struggled all along with this: it seems to me that there is a depth of animosity towards Wessely which is unexplained in the article, but which we seem unable to explain without recourse to sources which (a) fail WP:RS and (b) go along the lines of "given that this view is wrong, and given that it is Wessely's fault, then Wessely is evil." - when actually neither statement is proven. I long for a proper review of the controversies in the medical press which mentions Wessely by name and actually gives some substance to the thing. In the mean time it is really hard to say, within policy, anything much more than that some people do not like him. You know, of course, that I have a particular problem with One Click, since they saw fit to attack me in a very unpleasant way simply for trying to restate their case in less blatantly biased terms. I also have a problem with their air of wronged innocence, it is very apparent that I am not alone in finding their approach to be unnecessarily combative, and I am very glad that you are still around and contributing to the article, because the only way to get balanced coverage of an issue is for people form all sides to work together. Sometimes I wish I'd never clicked the link - I was only looking for a spelling error! Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the encouragement, Guy, but I'm not intending to be around any more; I have said on Talk:Simon Wessely that I wouldn't be contributing further to the discussion - the only reason I posted additional comment was because I needed to correct an Admin for a misplaced accusation, and while I was there... It's a sine qua non that an in-depth review of the "Wessely issue" by the broadsheet press or medical journals is long overdue but you are aware of the bias in medical journals and you are aware of Wessely's position and influence and it would take a very brave editor, indeed, to run such an article; it's unlikely to happen and most likely not until research into aetiologies and treatments has caught up (and you are also aware that there is precious little funding being channelled into ME/CFS research). So since Avb's gone, too, the development of the Opposition and Criticism section will be left to you and to "JFW" and whoever else comes along in the future. In terms of medical politics, you will have realised by now that ME/CFS is one of the most controversial arenas - there is a very great deal at stake for those whose research and medical careers have been built on the biopsychosocial model and significant financial implications for the NHS, DWP, social services, for the provision of education for sick children and for the insurance and pensions industries. Opposition, and vehement opposition to Wessely certainly exists and has done so for years and not just amongst the more "extreme" members of the ME/CFS community and their advocates and the forums and websites which provide them with platforms. With careers and research grants at stake it is a brave medic or researcher who is prepared, in the UK, to stick his or her head above the parapet but there a few: Dr Abhijit Chaudhuri, Dr Margaret Cook, Prof Malcolm Hooper. Given the known bias of medical journals and the reluctance of the press to carry criticism of Wessely, his colleagues and his followers it is inevitable that finding sources of evidence which both adequately expresses the depth of opposition and fulfils Wiki requirements was never going to be easy.

There are a couple of points I'd like to leave you with and I'll try to be brief (you may rightly feel that if I still have comment to make then the place to make it would be on the Wessely Discussion page, itself). Firstly, it might be "shorthand" on your part, but I don't consider it helpful to continue to use phrases like "depth of animosity" - this reduces the issue to the personal level whereas the issue is political. Please maintain the focus not on the man himself but on the opposition to his influence and that of the "Wessely School" and the perception of its downstream impact on access to medical care, social care, shaping of DWP policy and the type of tests and treatments offered to ME/CFS sufferers, whether adults or children. Is it not possible to develop a paragraph which would encompass these concepts and includes links to a selection of sources of evidence which have already been provided? I know you're not comfortable with this but I would like to see the link for the ONE CLICK article "The Psychiatric Paradigm" remain; I'd like to see the patient group/charity organisation the 25% ME Group cited as a source of evidence for opposition, likewise the MEA; Prof Hooper and also the Countess of Mar cited as prominent individuals who have (for many years) publicly expressed their opposition to Wessely and "The Wessely School" (Hansard: or does Parliamentary Privilege negate Hansard as being a reliable source?); possibly Dr Eleanor Stein as a psychiatrist who rejects the "Wessley" construct of "CFS".

Secondly, some thought needs to be given to the consideration of whether there is an agenda behind wishing to cite only ONE CLICK as a source of criticism and opposition when it is evident that opposition to Wessely and the "Wessely School" exists not only amongst the more political and vociferous ME/CFS advocates but also amongst the charities who represent the ME/CFS patient community, amongst the academic and medical community and amongst members of the House of Lords. In offering only ONE CLICK as sole source of criticism and opposition, the degree and extent of opposition may be marginalised to just this one "voice" - a "voice" which may be dismissed as being nothing more than an "extreme" view held by a very small but vocal minority; this will grossly understate and misrepresent the true extent of the opposition but perhaps this is precisely what "JFW" seeks to achieve. MEagenda 11:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is difficult for dissenting opinion to get in the medical press, but not impossible. The BMJ will shortly be publishing a review of bicycle helmet laws showing that they have failed in every case to reduce injuries, which is a giant leap for those of us who believe that the monomania for helmets is a distraction from the cause of danger, negligent driving. Dissenting opinion can usually get published somewhere, unless it genuinely is just cranks, which I don't think is the case here (although it does seem that some at least oppose psychological palliatives oin the grounds that they refuse to accept that there is any mental element whatsoever, which as a depressive I find disquieting - I am well aware of the stigma which attaches to "mental illness" despite the fact that many mental illnesses can be directly traced to chemical imbalances in the body and other "physical" causes).

One Click are a very poor example of patient activism. Personal attack is an abysmal way to get your point noted and given proper weight in a political context.

I'm sorry you don't want to continue to contribute. I think that there has been some productive dialogue, and moderate and well-informed voices are always welcome. It is, of course, your choice in the end. But do take a look around the project, there are many other subject areas which need work, and anything which counters the systemic bias towards adolescent male interests is most welcome :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a danger here that you are missing the point: the "Wessely School" promulgates the theory that whilst there may be a physiological trigger for the onset of CFS that the perception of continued illness and its maintenance is due to psychological factors, faulty beliefs, "secondary gain", faulty parenting, "deconditioning" et al which can be cured by "rehabilitation programmes" using CBT and Graded Activity/Graded Exercise. CBT may be of help to some sufferers in many types of illness used as an adjunct to other treatments. The issue, here, is that these are not being offered as palliatives but as "cures". GET is known to be detrimental in many sufferers of ME and ICD CFS - it may help those suffering from "fatigue" or from "chronic fatigue" but "fatigue" and "chronic fatigue" are not ME or CFS (unless we are talking Wessley's version of CFS as per Oxford Criteria). And I'm not convinced yet that you see the difference or the implications for the ME/CFS sufferer. I have contacts whose condition has deteriorated significantly following GET programmes. There are children so severely affected by ME that they need to remain in darkened rooms, in silence and tube fed. What are the parents of some of these children told - that their children suffer from "pervasive refusal syndrome". I have adult contacts who are doubly incontinent as a result of severe ME - is CBT going to cure them? No, it is not. It is not the "stigma" of the association of CBT with mental illness which is the issue but the lack of acceptance that an underlying disease process exists and persists in the first place. But all this has been covered already by others in the (now deleted) archives. If you would like copies of any of the research papers or articles I have refered to in the last few weeks - let me know - I'll be more than happy to email them to you. I very much doubt that I would have the time to look at other Wiki stuff, I have a number of committments and I am also the carer of a young man who has lost all his adolescence to this wretched illness - whose 24/7 hyperacusis and "hang over" type headache is still so pronounced, seven years post onset, that he cannot comfortably open a packet of crisps let alone go clubbing or do any of the other stuff young men are into and so I'm a little out of touch, in any case, with adolescent male interests. MEagenda 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ottoman Sultan/Wikipedian Vote for Montenegrin Independence

The above page was userfied from mainspace (Special:Undelete/Wikipedian_Vote_for_Montenegrin_Independence). It seems to me to be divisive and not at all helpful towards our goal of building an encyclopedia. However, I can't find any applicable speedy deletion criteria. Any comments? --kingboyk 10:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a userpage it's terrifically dicey, IMHO. I see JzG popped in and asked nicely... if that doesn't work, try putting it up under WP:MfD and see what happens. I'd pop in and plunk down my two cents for you. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was gogin to give it a day or so and then go over. As long as it's not being linked, it's not causing an immediate problem, but I don't see it has much potential for good. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good move. Thanks for handling it. --kingboyk 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Becky-RE-fan

I was about to slap a warning on her, but you beat me to it! It's sad it's even been going on for as long as it has. --[[User:TonySt|Ton<FONT COLOR="#003366">[[WP:ESP|y]]</font><sup>[[User_talk:TonySt|St]]</sup>]] 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Faber

Hello : ) This might be of interest to you. There is a content dispute around the use of a tabloid image in the biography of a possible rape victim. Nightscream brought the case to arb comm because Tufflaw keeps removing the image. I removed the image and asked that it not be re-inserted without consensus from a large number of experienced users. Generally, I follow a 1RR and almost never remove except for clear copyright violation or libel. I won't remove it again, but will depend on like minded editor to help figure out the best course of action. I can't see any attempts at dispute resolution. I know you have some experience dealing with these matters. Hopefully this will not turn into a long drawn-out community-wide dispute. FloNight ^talk 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there is a copyright violation (the fair use discussions on the email list are confusing and leave me uncertain) and there is not libel, so I'm outside my usual zone for insisting something immediately stay out of an article. I think it doesn't meet WP:BLP so I went with the do no harm rule.

I think the whole article is badly named. The article is not about the person, it is about the case. Maybe it should be re-named or merged with an article about the case if it already exists. : ) FloNight ^talk 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind it is already encyclopaedically covered in Kobe Bryant, we do not need an article on Katelyn Faber at all. What has she ever done apart from appear as witness and plaintiff in two court cases? It's pointless celebrity-at-one-remove trivia. We ought to campaign for a change to WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not The National Enquirer. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was in Kobe Bryant until I removed it! I left the same stern warning not to put it back in without consensus. : ) Instead of discussing it in both article, lets focus on getting it out of Katelyn Faber first. Then get the image deleted! Can't go back in any other articles that way. Agree about WP:NOT. No female that I know would choose that image for their article. Yet, it is exactly the type of image a tabloid uses to be provocative. --FloNight ^talk 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree up to a point: it's not our job to flatter a subject. But neither is it our job to collude in tittilation and sensastionalism, especially when that is apparently designed to bolster the reputation of another subject. Just zis Guy you know? 22:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ben

One more spelling issue, you have "an y" which I think should be "any" JoshuaZ 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi. I left the following message on another admin's page, and he directed me to you, saying that you had more experience in this sort of thing (edit: and it looks like you really know where your towel's at!).

Mate I'd like to make a complaint to administration against this guy's use of his user page. For a start, it is offensive to me. It contravines WP:NOT and, I'm sure, many other policies. One particular part borders on incitement. He is using his userpage as a sounding board or soapbox and is quite obviously bigoted, full of hatred, and small minded: not a person I feel that is likely to submit many NPOV edits. I appreciate the recent debates about userboxes etc, but this guy goes much further than anything in the use of userboxes that I've seen.
I am not looking to get the guy banned (although my personal opinion is that Wiki would probably be better off without him). And I would note to you that if I ever come across a user who has similar (though politically opposing) beliefs, I would be just as quick to complain about them too.
I debated in my mind as to whether to put the name of the person here, as I don't necessarily want you to get involved - I just want your help in the actual complaint process (direct me to a page or whatever). Anyway, I figured you could always delete the link later, which is: User:Fenian Swine. --Mal 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any advice you might have to offer me on this matter, as I've never felt the need to take action like this against another editor before. Thanks in advance, --Mal 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky for me, as a Brit - User:Fenian Swine will not see any contribution I might make as being neutral. I think the best bet is to sak at WP:AN whether this violates the username policy, and whether an admin who is not British could ask him to tone down his user page bya few orders of magnitude. I'll also post this to the mailing list. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see he's started an argument with you over his name or something..? I was of course, only asking you for advice - not to necessarily get involved... though, as a Brit, I would assume you might find his userpage insulting also. Can you explain what the mailing list is? Cheers. --Mal 10:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I don't find it particularly offensive, but it does seem to be deliberately combative, and many other similarly offensive usernames have been blocked in the past. Info on the mailing list is at WP:ML Just zis Guy you know? 11:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again JzG. I should note that its not his username that I have a particular problem with, but rather the content of his user page. --Mal 12:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon (2nd nomination)

Good morning. You participated in the Deletion Review discussion of this page. The page was relisted on AFD. I noticed that you don't appear to have commented in the AFD discussion yet. So far, there has been scant participation and it may have to be relisted. If you feel it's appropriate, please join the conversation. Rossami (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request

I think List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning and Nationally recognized accrediting agencies should be merged together. One has a list and the other a description of the groups. Arbusto 19:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help merge articles

In relation to the following arbitration case, which is nearing completion:

SimonP and the King James Version

And in relation to the following completed centralised discussions:

Some assistance is requested, once the arbitration case is closed, in merging together the following articles

And any other such articles that may currently exist

I have already prepared example merges of some of these articles

Merge Example 1 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:17 -> should be merged to Genealogy of Jesus
Merge Example 2 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 3:1 to Matthew 3:17 -> should be merged to Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (or similar title)

For titles check out List of New Testament stories (many are currently redlinks)

--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! That's a job and a half. I wonder to what extent SimonP will help? Just zis Guy you know? 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get Real

Don't even think about bringing up this stupid subject again. Im keeping the name and I don't appreciate you, an administrator of all people, bringing Wiki in to disripute over PC gone mad. This subject was put to bed months ago, with all parties in agreement that I would keep my name. So please, as the administrator you are, find better things to do with your time than to cause argument, stir trouble and discriminate against people of the island of Ireland.--Play Brian Moore 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know something? I was as polite as I could reasonably have been, and you have just acted like a complete dick. Just zis Guy you know? 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice lol has fallen on deaf ears. You have left a bitter taste in my mouth. I have been editting Wiki for the best part of a year and have had very little trouble with the name(apart from a colourful discussion around August of '05). If 'jimbo' or 'angela', or any other user for that matter, has a problem with my user name they would be well advised to confront me themselves instead of sending down one of their pawns to contact me. The use of the term dick shows just how bad Wiki has become. Someone like myself, who has made over 1,000 consrtuctive edits, cannot become an administrator while someone who just throws out derogatory terms can become an administraotor. One must wonder whether this is yet another example of Wiki's discrimination. The name stands. I use a different name when editting. So unless Jimbo is willing to get off his throne and confront the problem himself, then I won't give the name change another thought. Now could you please stop wasting time with this Political correctness and try not to throw tantrums or use name calling as a means of abuse to get your way.--Play Brian Moore 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what possible value you can see in the use of a deliberately provocative user name. This is your opinion. The name is not intentionally provocative. So please, keep your biased opinions to yourself.--Play Brian Moore 23:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine, Jiombo's and Angela's, it seems. Now try being WP:CIVIL. Your asseriton of "tantrums" is patently absurd, my message sto you have been very calm indeed. Just zis Guy you know? 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messages to me, they have been calm but on your own talk page, you have thrown out derogatory terms, including dick. If you call this calmness, then we obviously have a different idea of what the word 'tantrum's means. And please, just let it go. The name stands. And maybe, jsut maybe, you should take some of your own advice and be civil towards me. I admit, I am not American(thank god) but I still have as equal a right to edit here as you.--Play Brian Moore 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your aggressive response to a calm request was dickish, and that one word was the sole example of anythiong other than 100% solid-gold civlity towards you. I am not American either. Just zis Guy you know? 08:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I showed no aggression, I simply told it how it was.--Play Brian Moore 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's how you react to all polite requests is it? Fascinating. Just zis Guy you know? 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so thats why you became an administrator. So you could annoy people who have different political views to you and then call them dicks. Ah well fascinating. Actually, now that I think of it, not fascianting at all, kind of boring, in fact. But there you go.--Play Brian Moore 18:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I became an admin because numerous people asked me to and two nominated me. And I didn't set out to annoy you, either, I politely pointed out that your username (and indeed some of the comments on your user page) are considered offensive by some people; I asked you very nicely if you wouldn't consider changing. Your aggressive reaction was predictable, I guess, but not particularly constructive. What do you think I should have done, as an admin, in response to the comments I received about your username and user page? Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have checked out my archived discussion pages to see it the highly offensive topic had been brought up before. If it had, you should have seen the result of the discussion and made a judgement based on that. From your approach, it would appear to me, althought I may be wrong, that you did not check anything I had done before and just opened fire. Im not going to change the name, it has stood for almost a year and is being perceived as offensive. Anyone can take anyhting to be offensive, as some form of slang. I'm not too bothered about people like that.--Play Brian Moore 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was to consult other experienced editors adn admins on the mailing list. Some expressed no special concerns, but some, including Jimbo and Angela (whose views are not without a certain weight in these parts) were uncomfortable with it. Of course, I could have ignored that and done nothing. That worked really well for Neville Chamberlain, didn't it? ;-) Meanwhile, some people still don't like it. Obviously you don't care. I don't much, either, but I thought I would at least ask. It seemed the right thing to do. Just zis Guy you know? 19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, Mr.Churchill??--Play Brian Moore 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breastcruft

Pure gold. - brenneman ^{L} 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From that write up: " I don't actually think she ahs ever done " (say it slowly)... Freudian slip? ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"nn-band"

As you can see from Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Nn-band. All of the existing references to it, assume that it is, as it was before, an alias of the "db-band" template, just as "nn-bio" redirects to "db-bio". I like the idea of the template you are wanting to create instead, but I think it would be best if you used a different name rather than overwriting this redirect. — Mar. 21, '06 [14:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Gah! Bollocks. Brain fade, sorry. I'll go and fix it. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence Award

Awarded for diligent quality work from Simon Wessely to the Jason Gastrich RfC & RfAr and so much more in between.
And for making me die laughing at times. AvB ÷ talk 09:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propsed move for RCC

JzG, please visit Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church again. If voters don't start responding to my actual case (laid out in the discussion section), and explain to me why Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Christ, and similar articles, should be titled by their claimed names--even though they can be ambiguous--but the Catholic Church should not be extended the same treatment, then I will begin proposing moves for those articles, as well. Merely for the sake of consistently applying this new de facto policy we are inventing for this article. Also see Robertsrussell's point on this double standard at the top of the page. --Hyphen5 09:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Gumperz

Copied from my response to your comment on my talk page:

Agreed...to a point, which is why I retracted the AfD nomination as soon as some notability was provided. The article, as written when originally prodded, is here, with the only assertion of notability listed with no citations. In that state, it could have easily gone up for speedy deletion, but I figured {{prod}}ing it was fair. Its true that the tone in which Monicasdude contested the proposed deletion did nothing to improve my outlook on the article. But given the fact that no improvement was made to it, the nomination for AfD was made in good faith. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith is not in dispute. But Brian's right: real subjects have a much harder ride than fictional ones these days, and that's bad. Just zis Guy you know? 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my response to your comment on my talk page::

I understand, and will try to include more information when prodding/AfDing articles. My reaction was primarily due to the fact that, after ignoring similar actions by Monicasdude towards me previously, and seeing that I was not alone in being in his crosshairs, I found that this is nothing new, and that RfCs have been filed here and here for exactly this kind of behavior. I realize that referring a user to WP:DICK is generally considered bad form, but given his history, I felt (and feel) that it was perfectly appropriate, and long overdue if it had not been done previously. It seems to me that Monicasdude likes to leave certain articles in poor states as "bait" (see User:Monicasdude/deletionwatch) for any poor sap who would dare come along and try to delete them. He doesn't edit them to improve them, just adds them to the deletion watch (obviously this is purely opinion, but seems like a reasonable assumption). According to the final disposition of the 2nd RfC, an RfAr is in the works, and I fully intend to participate. Users like this create vastly more harm than good, and (once again) in my opinion, have no place here. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 12:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

NatSel

I saw your changes at the NatSel page. The reason any no one is changing it is to prevent an edit war that is going on, and there is a Request for arbitration made to solve some of the issues. I think that there is a decent lead introduction stored elsewhere, but not inserted again to avoid edit warring. Later today, I am going to take your piece to the talkpage (without replacing it) for comments. --KimvdLinde 15:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I know there is an edit war. And it applies to text within the article., But the opening was utterly baffling to me, and I understand what natural selection is. Yes, there is valid debate about how the term should be defined, but the lead needs to state what it is, it doesn't need to define it in detail, it just needs to give a very short description of what the topic is. So I was bold. Just zis Guy you know? 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, his lead was utterly baffling. KimvdLinde 16:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Arbitration is about user conduct not content anyway, and in the end the project comes first: having an article on a major topic (and one hotly disputed by some) which starts with something which is barely comprehensible even to those who have a reasonable understanding of the subject does not look good. I'm all for debate, of course, but sometimes things need to be just fixed :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, just takes hours before it gets edited away again. KimvdLinde 16:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will lock the sucker :-) It will of course be the wrong version... Just zis Guy you know? 16:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL KimvdLinde 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

Hi JzG,

I notice a CfD nom of yours is way down at the bottom of the MfD page; just wondering if you knew, so you could fix it. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will sort it.

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous People With A.D.D

In re this AfD, if you think it to be a copyright infringement, as your nomination suggests, it should be blanked and go to WP:CP instead. AfD isn't the venue for dealing with copyright infringements, since we can't retain them whichever way the AfD swings. -Splash^talk 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The names are taken from the (unreliable) sources, but extra data is added. Still speculation. Just zis Guy you know? 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I was only really dealing with the fact that you alluded to copyright violation in your nomination. I wasn't referring to whether it should be kept or not. It's just a fairly standard reminder that, if one suspects copyright infringement, the first stop is WP:CP, rather than AfD. -Splash^talk 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got the drift. Too many balls in the air at the moment. Just zis Guy you know? 00:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Rapid Transit Mediation

Thank you for taking on the task of mediating the PRT page.

I am mentioned by name in the Wikipedia personal rapid transit article and attacked by name on the PRT Talk page and my Talk page and other Wikipedia pages by anonymous authors.

This is what those anonymous authors have said about me:

"You're on crack." [11]

"Avidor's psychotic interjections " [12]

"Unreasonable, destructive, irrational, unwilling to debate changes. This is Avidor's history on Wikipedia"

"...his actions are based in mental illness rather than reason."

One of these anonymous accusers has made these statements about me to mediators:

"So now you're bowing out ,eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is. "

[13]

"Avidor is an 'extremist'."

[14]

Why do you allow anonymous authors to post this stuff?

Like John Seigenthaler Sr., I think I deserve to have a chance to clear my name and have this dispute resolved as quickly as possible.

Also in the article itself are the following:

"PRT IS A JOKE Is a Joke (satire)- Web site owned by a non-cartoonist supportive of PRT.

Analysis of some of the anti-PRT arguments originated by Ken Avidor."

Speaking of "Mr. Grant" (David Gow)...

Mr. Gow has encouraged "Transportation Enthusiast" on his blog[15] but has since removed this post encouraging T.E. from his blog.... why?

FYI about "Transportation Enthusiast"... he was banned from the Seattle P.I. web board and his comments erased [16]

Why is Wikipedia allowing T.E., "Mr. Grant" and others to use Wikipedia describe me as mentally ill and psychotic on this page and others?

It's ironic that T.E. and his anonymous accomplices have had me blocked and my comments removed from the PRT Talk page.

Even more ironic is that I am mentioned by name in the Wikipedia PRT article itself.

What kind of "encyclopedia" allows anonymous character assasination while preventing the accused from defending himself?

It's also important to note that Leroy Demery's (a transportation consultant using his own name) comments were also removed from the talk page.

It is also important to note that this article is likely being used to influence legislators in Minnesota to vote in favor of PRT bills in the current session. In the past, PRT companies have sold stock to investors. Wiikipedia should be very concerned about misinformation that may influence public officials and investors.

Avidor 19:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I have said I think you have a point. But I also think you could be more constructive in what you say (not that it's entirely your fault, there seesm to be a bit of an argumentative crowd over there). I think I might archive the Talk page and try for a bit of calm, I'm not sure. Just zis Guy you know? 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, please please please look at the history of this debate. Avidor started out by calling PRT proponents "cultists" and repeated the word "cult" a half a dozen times. Every time we asked him for detail, he responded with vague demands or links to his own web pages that are basically political in nature. The few times he's raised valid concerns, we've addressed them immediately!

Here's a sampling of his responses on the talk page:

"If I wrote the article it would say that PRT is a hoax and an anti-transit scam... which it is."
"You bet I'm biased against PRT...it's a hoax and a scam."
Why don't you e-mail and complain to Jimmy Wales? Tell him that Avidor won't let you and your anti-transit CETA pals do to LRT what was done to John Seigenthaler Senior." (Note that LRT - light rail transit - is barely mentioned anywhere in the article or talk page)
What kind of an engineer are you anyway, TE?
S'funny how many of these PRTers turn out to be computer software engineers who think they can re-invent transit to be like the internet...
As for your PRT "visionaries"...Ed Anderson? last I read he was running his PRT company out of his house. Haven't heard much about him since the Taxi 2000 lawsuit. Is there anything new? Jerry Schneider? Check out the movie of the toy monorail Schneider thinks is worth putting on his wacky gadgetbahn website: {link}. Some visionaries!!!"

Here's a good example: when we added links to pages about PRT, at his request, he responded with the following:

"No links to anything real... just true believers in a lost cause following crackpot 'visionaries'. Yep, the PRT cult is in firm control of this Wikipedia page."

So basically, his argument is anyone who studies PRT is a crackpot and should not be linked from the page, but then he demands links to external references! It's a circular argument: when you link to a page discussing PRT, he dismisses the link as the work of crackpots! Never mind the fact that these are tenured professors who have spent their lives studying transit (with a focus on PRT) and publishing books on the topic. It doesn't matter to him because his POV is firmly established: PRT is the work of crackpots and scam artists, and any evidence to the contrary (there are reams of it) is offensive to him.

Realize that this conflict has been going on for two months now: Avidor adding the NPOV with no explanation, followed by us asking Avidor for clarification (or, even better, requesting that he make the changes himself if he so chooses) and him responding with nothing actionable. Then, the mediators show up, and he acts like a victim. It's all a game to him: he can't get his version of PRT to be displayed, so he's going to continue to trash this article to make his point. Please read the history.

We have always been motivated to fix this page -- it's Avidor that wants to trash it because it conflicts with his belief system.

One more thing unrelated to the Avidor debate: I just made a minor change to the intro, indicating that PRT is not proven in a real world setting (it has been proven in prototypes). Please let me know what you think. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the history. Avidor is right: muchopf the article looks like advertorial. This is in many ways a misleading impression, since a lot of the text is neutral, but the overabundance of external links does not help. It's clearly written by an enthusiast, which is fine, but it's a bit too clearly written by an enthusiast, which is part of Avidor's point. Just zis Guy you know? 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that many of those links were added because Avidor and the previous mediator demanded them? Earlier versions of the page were not linked everywhere, but then Avidor demanded (with his repeated re-application of NPOV) that everything be "wikified" ("LINKS LINKS LINKS" - see the talk page) so we added links everywhere.

If you read the history, did you count the number of times that Avidor provided valid, actionable items? In each case, we addressed his concerns immediately. But how were we to address them when he was non-specific? For example: direct quote: "If I wrote the article it would say that PRT is a hoax and an anti-transit scam... which it is. Prove that it isn't and back your claims up with LINKS to FACTS not conjecture, not opinion, not wishful thinking." How were we supposed to address that vague concern? Lacking detail, we added links everywhere, which is why the page is what it is today. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was read through the past debate, note the substance of the points made, and then forget it. It's not a case of who is right and who is wrong, it's about taking the article and making it better. There is right on both sides (else I'd just have warned Avidor off ad left t at that); apportioning degrees of rightness to individual contributors in unproductive. It was fair to say, in vague terms, it sucked a bit. In vague terms, it had too many external links and was too accepting of what is, after all, largely unproven technology. Now as it happens I don't think e;evated rail schemes are ugly, but lots of people do, and we should acknowledge that. The RKB cartoon accurately identified some of the potential problems. Do you not acknowledge those potential problems? Well, obviously you acknowledge them, since the article had at least some of them already. It's not seriously broken, but neither is it a dispassionate review of the subject. Past experience idciates that working with others with opposing views makes a better article in the end. With a bit of pain :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Your edits have been mostly an improvement so far. The only thing I'll add is, it's nice to have someone that is working with us now. We were never against dispassionate review or debate... but Avidor did neither.

And, FWIW, nobody objected to Avidor adding his objections -- there's never been a debate about him including his skepticism. The debate was mainly Avidor making mostly vague demands that could not be addressed.

But I'll go along with your advice to forget it and move on, if Avidor cooperates. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much the best thing. beware of the tigers :-) Just zis Guy you know? 00:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second part

JZG,

"I have just removed more of Avidor's ranting to his sub-page. He is NOT welcome here any more. Skybum 16:13,"

It is not pleasant to be attacked and libeled by anonymous accusers... worse to not be able to respond. Avidor 07:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JZG-"Assuming you are the Ken Avidor..." If you have doubts, I suggest you send an e-mail to verify this. Contact info at the bottom of this page [17]

Avidor 12:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By tradition on Wikipedia an editor is entitled to anonymity, that is, not to be linked to their "external" persona. Looking at your user page I guess you do make the link yourself, so the qualification was unnecessary. I was just being careful :-) Count me a fan of RKB, cyclist agit-prop of a high order. I guess you'll have spotted by now that I ride a bike... Just zis Guy you know? 13:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded as requested... not sure if I did this right:

[18]

If I didn't, let me know the correct way to upload, tag etc.

I am very pleased with the progress on the page... particularly the removal of weasel words (I never heard that term before).

Thank you. Avidor 12:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

third part

JzG: We seem to have reached an impasse on the two points I raised on the PRT talk page. I really like almost all the changes you've made on this page, except (a) the elimination of Light Rail Now rebuttals and (b) the inclusion of the cartoon. The whole article is now presented in a factual, straightforward way (thanks largely to you) but the criticism section now contains a very strong POV due to the cartoon. Shouldn't the "don't sell it" rule also apply to criticism? Avidor's cartoon is not about raising arguments against PRT, but rather selling his anti-PRT position. I think the criticism section should be a place to outline the debate, not to display an anti-PRT campaign poster containing inflammatory and unproven claims. I would like to debate this further but the debate seems to have ended (people are voting, not debating), and I don't want to cause trouble by making the change myself. Can you help? Can you at least answer my concerns about POV? I am still having trouble seeing why this cartoon should be here. I certainly don't see it as lighthearted given that it contains a reference to terrorism, and I can't see how it can be NPOV given its content. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: I frankly don't understand the justification of removing one side of the debate while keeping the other. The main portions of the article are now almost completely fact-based with no promotion or POV (thanks to your work -- and thank you for that). But, you removed the "Pros" section so there is no section for putting the PRT side of the debate, and you removed all references to the PRT side from the criticism section! So now you have (1) a factual section on PRT theory with no advocacy (and rightly so!), and (2) a single section that contains only criticism, with no answer to that criticism. There is no indication of the ongoing debate between advocates and critics. How is this a balanced treatment? How does Vuchic (who has not extensively studied PRT) get a full paragraph of criticism but Anderson (virtually the father of PRT) is not quoted at all in response? This is quite arbitrary to me. The PRT answer to the criticism (which is reasoned and fact-based) needs to be included somewhere in this article. If not in the criticism section, then elsewhere. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not mean allowing the proponents of something not only to state their case but to rebut every point made by their opponents. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the pro case being stated in the first place? The bulk of the article is history and system design -- which is basically just a NPOV presentation of facts. You've removed almost all instances of salesmanship and promotion from these sections, and rightly so. In fact, in a few cases, criticism is interspersed in these sections, which is also fine. But you also removed the entire section that discussed the arguments in favor of PRT. So what's left? Only a neutral section followed by one side of the debate. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the article's existence is inherently "pro". It could just say that personal rapid transit is an untried technology which has never been used beyond the prototype stage and which conflicts with regulatory and other regimes. Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does say all that! I quote: "no PRT project has yet progressed beyond a prototype"... "legitimate questions remain"... "lack of financing"... "predicted cost overruns"... "conflicts with regulatory agencies"... "PRT is a controversial concept"... "yet to be proven in a real world setting"... all this from the introduction! How can this be considered "pro"? It's plain statement of fact, as is the history section, as is the design section. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. There is nothing "pro"-PRT in the entire article. Up until the criticism section, it is a pure statement of fact. The only section which discusses the arguments is the criticism section, and it only gives half the story. A Transportation Enthusiast 03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staring at the soggy, bitter tea leaves at the bottom of my cup... I really have a lot of artwork to get to... arguing about PRT is not a good use of my time... is there some way that the PRT article can be frozen to stop this incredible waste of everybody's time?Avidor 16:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fourth part

JzG: I like the debate that's happening now on the talk page. I understand your points, although I don't quite agree with them. I do like the fact that you have turned this into a rational discussion rather than a flame war. We've even gotten some new faces in the debate on both sides (someone new just raised the cost question on the anti- side of the debate, and I think he has some good points). But currently there are 2 or 3 separate discussions interspersed on the talk page, and it's getting confusing. So I was thinking maybe I should go in and re-organize it into separate sections where the different points can be debated. If I don't hear from you, I'll do this tonight. Thanks again for your continued work on this article... I think we're almost there. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I tried to organize the talk page, but I failed miserably. There's a lot of interspersed arguments in there and I didn't want to screw anything up. I decided it'd be best to leave it alone. Regarding the criticism section, I am still convinced that the pro-feasibility side is unfairly squelched in this debate. I know you're more experienced than I am, but I fail to see how suppressing half of a debate is somehow a POV improvement. If we present one side, we should present the other, and I've seen no WP:policy that would disallow that in this case. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T.E likes to debate....his endless, endless, endless debating got him banned from the Seattle PI web board. I'm usually for unlimited free speech..but in this case....C'mon, some of us have a life...Avidor 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request superpower assistance...shut it down...delete it...freeze it...something...please...Avidor 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Avidor requests that you freeze the page, 40 minutes later you threaten to do exactly that, and for vague reasons that none of us can figure out. What gives? Now you once again have reverted Skybum's (and my) whole set of edits, without analyzing the talk page arguments in which we gave detailed justification of those edits, and then accused us of being non-neutral because you've deemed us "proponents"! Did you even read the arguments we listed on the talk page? This is very disturbing behavior for any Wikipedia user, let alone an admin, who should know better. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's lacking in this article is anything about how PRT is used by anti-transit right wingers and libertarians to bash real transit. To not have this in the article would be like having an article about Intelligent Design without mentioning how Intelligent Design is used to bash evolution. Because PRT does not exist, the proponents can constantly move the goalposts. However, one thing remains constant--their claim that PRT is superior to transit, in particular LRT. Wherever LRT has been considered (Minneapolis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Austin, Denver, Detroit and more), the PRT proponents invaded the meetings...arguing...arguing...endlessly as you see them doing on the Wikipedia page, wasting everybody's time...and that's the idea. I hope that you will lock this page up at least until the middle of April (when the Minnesota Legislature's session is half over). There are important transit bills before the legislature, and I don't want to see this Wikipedia page being used to help right-wingers like Olson to argue against the bills.Thank you.Avidor 07:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to both the above: I have the page on my watchlist, and I make my own decisions about what needs doing. My decisions are not always right, but they are always mine; complaints may be addressed to the admin nnoticeboard or any other WP dispute resolution process. The article does mention how PRT is used to distract from proven systems - or did when I left it, I will need to go and have another look (I still think Avidor's cartoon said this well, but some people do not like it). Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a political battleground. The article is, to my mind, generally quite neutral now, but I don't appreciate the fact that people are still slapping big chunks of text in without talking about them first. Articles in difficulties typically go through a period where new content is discussed before addition, and this almost always results in a better article with much calmer debate. Just zis Guy you know? 09:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: There have been a few misunderstandings, and I hope they are behind us. But I'd like to point out that a lot of the changes you reverted were minor, not "big chunks of text", and they were discussed on the talk page. I know you're busy and maybe you don't have time to read every single line of that rapidly expanding talk page, but if you don't read the talk then you should be more careful about massively reverting large sets of changes. I would also hope that in the future, if Skybum or I make a change that you don't agree with, then discuss it with us on the talk page. Reverting changes, then threatening to lock the page (twice), then calling us non-neutral proponents... this only creates conflict.

Regarding your statement that "The article is, to my mind, generally quite neutral now", well, there's still significant disagreement on that. That's why there's still debate on the page, because there are several reasonable people who believe that the article has swung to the negative POV, by removing all of the proponent arguments while keeping the criticism.

I would also add that neither I nor Skybum have ever used this article as a "soapbox or a political battleground". Look at the history. Most of my changes have been minor and many were done in response to Avidor's complaints. Skybum's history is similar. Now, admittedly there were times when both Skybum and I (as well as Fresheneesz) got frustrated and perhaps reacted inappropriately, but this was at the end of a long, protracted battle with Avidor. I would hope that you've drawn a line on our history just as you drew a line on Avidor's. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And some were big chunks of text, like the one where I made the "big chunks of text" comment after moving it to Talk. Some were indeed minor, and some were minor but problematic. The fact that those who are pro and anti PRT both feel that the article is not neutral is probably a good sign :-) You claim you are neutral? Really? I don't think any editor is entirely neutral. Wikipedia often works by averaging out the various biases. The article read like a battleground between those promoting an unproven technology and those unhappy with the way it has been promoted in their area (no public transit system can be divorced from politics). Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point I've been making is, it is one thing to "average various biases" naturally, by negotiating about the structure and presentation of facts (even facts about expert opinions). It is quite another to suppress one whole side of a reasoned debate in an attempt to "balance POV". The latter is quite dangerous, for the simple reason that any time one editor is suppressing factual information in the name of neutrality, that editor's bias trumps all others'. The POV effectively becomes that of the single editor who determines the appropriate "balance".

When in doubt, we should be erring on the side of presenting fact, not suppressing it. And the fact remains: the debate you are suppressing is fundamental to any PRT discussion. It is glaring by its omission here. Why don't we present the debate in a neutral way and let readers decide for themselves? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Or are you asking for a source just to be an asshole about it? Fresheneesz 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)"Avidor 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that comment. May I note that he never did respond to my question. He asked for a *source* for my opinion that buses and trains are mostly empty most of the time. Avidor has unintentionally asked for plenty of abuse, and has gotten much less than he deserves. I will be as restrained as I can be. I'm sorry to have to write on your talk page about this, but I'm not going to let a propaganda expert vaugly take my writing out of context. Fresheneesz 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Fasten 13:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Blanking

Please blank or authorize the blanking of my User Talk page so that I can have a fresh start. Regardless of our past differences, I would hope you can see that the "teapot tempests" there do not reflect the totality of my contributions, giving strangers a false impression of what I can do or have done on Wikipedia. Also, given that total strangers are now editing previously existing material on the page, it seems that there is a high potential for malicious vandalism which I, if I understand the rules correctly, would not be allowed to remove or revert.

Your help would be appreciated.

Davidkevin 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Actually it's not too hard to do - you just click Move, move it to User Talk:Davidkevin/Archive n, then click the link to take you back to Talk and make the redirect back into a link. Or copy & paste, that's legit as well. But I'm all for clean slates after the dust has settled. Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I was asking for erasure, not archiving into even more permanancy. Not intending to be argumentative, but I don't see how filing the slate cleans it.

Davidkevin 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, erasure is not what you want, trust me - people will often tend to view that with suspicion. There is nothing wrong with drawing a line under the past, but you can't deny that it happened. Look at the archives on my Talk page, there is plenty to see there and it all says things about who I am. Your best bet is to make a statement on the Talk page saying that you are making a fresh start. Trust me, I have see far more disputatious Talk page histories than yours. I think you are doing the right thing walking away from past conflicts, and playing a straight bat is part of that. That's my view, anyway. You can MfD if if you want it killed now, but I recommend you don't. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[ sigh ] Good things said about one, even if true, are remembered but a moment; bad things said about one, even if false, are remembered and archived until the heat-death of the Universe.

I give up. Thank you for your advice.

Davidkevin 22:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not like that. Few people bother probing the archives, they are just there for transparency. Honestly, this is the right thing. Far worse things have been said about me on talk pages! Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfD Catholicism (disambiguation)

JzG, I agree about your suggestion for a wider debate on the Catholic articles. However, I see no reason why Catholicism (disambiguation) should serve as the catalyst for that debate. It is a stub, and an uninformed one. We have better articles that act as disambigs for all the many churches (e.g., Catholic, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Catholicism itself). --Hyphen5 00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ripple AFD

See Template_talk:Afdx for how to properly list articles with existing AFDs. You also might want to archive this page. kotepho 21:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thanks. I use jnothman's AFD Helper script, which defaults to AFD, not AFDx. Sean Ripple was previously AfD'd but there was nothing in "what links here" or the deleted history because the previous incarnation was userfied. Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was userfied, there would be a deleted redirect in the page history. I knew I'd seen the page before, and I think the issue is that it was recently restored after listing at DRV. --kingboyk 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have expected that, but there is nothing in the deleted history at all. And "what links here" does not link to DRV (because, of course, DRV gets cleared out). There is no reference to the delete debate or DRV on Talk. I'm not above clueless errors - actually I make them all the time, including with two other AfDs today - but this one is very puzzling. Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions DRV in the edit history, and I'm pretty sure I commented in the debate. I've certainly commented on it at one time or another :) Page log --kingboyk 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks from the log like it was userfied and the redirect deleted, then presumably recreated, it got AFD'd and deleted, then it got restored per DRV (complete with the redirect to user space). It's had an interesting life, that one. --kingboyk 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. Ah well. Relisting after DRV is never a problem, I guess. I am still thoroughly unconvinced of this guy's notability, as well as very confused :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA, pleh

Thanks for closing that AfD, really. Someone needed to do it sooner rather than later... if I seemed like the most likely candidate to give you a hard time about it, I just wanted to reassure you that I am not gonna do that at all. As I've said, there's just not enough verifiable information for an article on the subject, and I still feel that way, but bad faith nominations aren't the way to deal with it at all. As for the actual article, I came to the conclusion a while back that "fixing it" is really just not worth the aggravation, to me at least. --W.marsh 22:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I think the article sucks, GNAA are trolls (read: not notable) and the whole mess has no place on WP, but the last thing we need is to waste still more time over them. That said, their wiki-war on blogs meets with my qualified approval :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payment arrangements

I have a large cashier's check here, ready to be sent, as soon as I have an address. - Corporate America (sell out!) 06:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and, um, help?

Gripes aside, I really do appreciate your intervention over at Personal Rapid Transit -- your actions certainly improved things dramatically. Meanwhile, I seem to have gotten involved in a minor edit war over at Burj Dubai. I think that the issue is much more clear-cut in this case, and I believe that I'm on the right side of it. Unfortunately, I'm going to be on vacation and mostly off-line for the next week, and won't be able to attend to it. Any way that you could patch things up over there? Skybum 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems calm right now, I will keep an eye though. Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo

I do not know what you aim to achieve by likning Arbustoo's editing history, but since it is simply obtained I see no reason to make a point of it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure most Wikipedians don't know how to get that info, and I thought that those editting some pages would like to see where he seems to focus all his efforts. Kalmia 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivially easy, and his edit history is a matter of record. His work in opposing the whitewashing of unacredited "universities" is no secret at all. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very generous (and perhaps a bit naive) to Arbustoo. His motives are highly suspect, as he commonly adds critical commentary to primarily, if not only, Christian entries. Any positive work he has done on Wikipedia or on education entries is surely overshadowed by his bias against Christian entries. --Doe, John 23:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "problem" with some enteries is that they mislead the reader pertaining to evidence, science, and credentials. You just seem to see the world in fundamental Christianity vs. the rest of the world. For example, you are opposed to the theory of evolution for emotional and religious reasons, not for scientific or evidential reasons. Thus, you are fighting a frustrating and uncited battle with your only supporters/authors are people on the fringes of academia who are preaching only to those who themselves have perdetermined conclusions that are not represented by the facts. You better believe that if I see anything misleading or innaccurate, I will correct according to sources and reason. Arbusto 02:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you white washed criticism and the note that his "PhD" is unaccredited etc.[19] Then please explain why you encouraged another editor to continue white washing the same article.[20] Arbusto 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Arbustoo is a problem there are several courses open to you per dispute resolution. Please be aware, however, that Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view is widely misunderstood - if you read it you will see that it does not mean we have to be nice about article subjects, we have to reflect the balance of opinions with appropriate weight; in cases like these that means accurately reflecting the dominant view, which is that degrees from unaccredited institutions are of substantially lesser value than those from accredited universities. It is also stated by several authorities that where many of the faculty of an institution have degrees awarded by that institution, that is one of the warning signs of a degree mill. Lastly, the view among non-Christians and indeed much of the wider Christian community is dismissive of many facets of Southern fundamentalism, such as the KJV-only movement and young-earth creationism. Again, we have to reflect this.

Two pages on MFD

I have nominated Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground and Wikipedia:Why should I care?. I'm leaving you this message, since you made both. --Rob 09:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 09:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges by first letter

I was thinking about nom. [[21]] and the other lists for AfD. What do you think? Arbusto 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant per category, I'd say. Zero encyclopaedic content, manually maintained (therefore permanently out of date) and adds nothing to the automatically maintained categories. <cough>listcruft</cough>. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its up for AfD now. Arbusto 22:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which? article

That would be good. I'm about to massively prune the criticism section of that article, and remove anything which is not a published criticism to the talk page. The citation itself is not critical, but we need to distinguish actual genuine published criticisms from *our* criticisms. email it to wikispam at <myusername> dot com Stevage 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'll need to scan it to PDF or some such. Note also that the fact of the discontinuity in reporting mechanism is in the footnotes of RCGB (which is I think a cited source). For drivers overestimating their own skill you can cite "Death on the Streets" by R. Davis, PhD, ISBN 0948135468, which references the source studies which are by several independent groups including, if memory serves, Lex Motor Group and the RAC. I think the PACTS paper "ten criticisms of speed cameras and why they are flawed" is linked. TRL published a letter criticising the misrepresentation of TRL323, I'm looking for the reference, here's a commentary: [22]. TRL421 contains around 10,000 observations and concludes that, for a givenroad type, both probability and severity of crashing increase with speed. I'll email you a copy if I have one in my library, not sure right now. Fatality rising with the forth power of speed on highways is Jocksch, I can get a full cite if needed. Good luck!

Re Melbourne, I think the first thing to do is turn it into an encyclopaedia article instead of a mirror if the Student Union newspaper! Holy vanispamcruft, Batman! I can see why you have been troubled by that one. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on that by way. --kingboyk 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Computer Gaming Club

Indiana University Computer Gaming Club was speedy deleted; its now been recreated again for the second time. could you delete it again? is there any way to stop it being recreated yet again? rgs, Zzzzz 17:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it again and tagged it with {{Deletedarticle}}. I'll let the more experienced Mr JzG decide whether to protect it from recreation or not (which {{Deletedarticle}} implies). --kingboyk 17:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that nobody explained what was going on to the (inexperienced) editor. That will probably do. Just zis Guy you know? 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justzisguy

I came across a Justzisguy (talk • contribs) on one of the other pages I follow. Separated at birth, you, or a username ridiculously close? --Christopherlin 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! The long arm of coincidence :-)

I just came here to ask the same thing, crazy. It's not an impersonator, but you might consider noting that you aren't this user.—WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 20:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the other user doesn't edit much it might be worth asking if he would mind choosing another name? I'm not suggesting for one moment that he be strong-armed, merely asked - and if he says no ~~feed him to the lions~~ so be it! :) (Seriously, there can't be any harm in asking and if says no well c'est la vie). --kingboyk 20:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Douglas Adams' popularity remains high, and probably increased by the recent film. I don't see a problem particularly though ... one uses the initials and the other uses the full phrase... --Mal 21:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why "alas"? Don't tell me you're not a fan? :-) (I have to admit, I've read the books at least twice - once in childhood and once in the last few years - and seen the TV series, but I have no idea who "Justzisguy" is! I was aware of course of the Adams connection but only because this Guy has mentioned it.) --kingboyk 21:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, they don't have sarcasm on Betelgeuse. Just zis Guy you know? 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no idea who "Justzisguy" is!" He's just zis guy, you know?

I am a BIGTIME fan of Douglas Adams, and particularly of THHGTTG (will that turn blue?). I first heard the radio series when I was in P6 or P7 (that would have been about 1980, so therefore a re-run). Our teacher would take us to our local library to sit and listen to it. We were all enraptured by it - having all went through the whole Star Wars thang, and grown up with Star Trek etc. Ironically, I had read later that Adams was actually quite anti-sci-fi (even though he had been a script-writer for Dr Who), and learned that this was a parody in that particular context (I knew it was a parody at the time, but not what the motivation had been). I also read that Adams had detested Pink Floyd and later became good friends with Dave Gilmour.

Me and a couple of mates absolutely sucked the Guide up and were able to quote almost the whole thing word for word (from THHGTTG to TRATEOTU).. even noting the variations between the LPs, the radio series, the books and the TV series. To this day I could probably still quote you large sections of it! Let me see if I remember how to spell this character's name - Gag Halfroont? He was Zaphod's therapist, and he is responsible for the quote when interviewed about the President's apparent madness: "Vell look.. Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?"

In short, I'm a hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is at! ;) --Mal 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Wolman

Hello,

You had originally flagged my entry for photographer Baron Wolman, Rolling Stone Magazine's Chief Photographer for the first 3 years of its existence. Any idea how long the "This article is flagged for deletion" will be on this entry? I had done this as a favor for a pretty notable photographer (a quick Google or Amazon search will verify this) and friend, and it's very embarrassing for him (and for me) to have this just hanging there. It's worse than no entry at all. If there's anything you can do in your official capacity to let the article go through, it would be great.

Thanks. Tim User: Scribblerman

Five days at most. I wouldn't worry too much, the debate is linked and it's clear that it will be kept. Incidentally, I didn't flag it originally, I found it on CAT:CSD, noted there was an assertion of notability (i.e. not a speedy candidate) so sent it to AfD instead. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just searched on "baron wolman" and there's nothing. He's gone. Should I just start again? One thing... whoever initiated the inquery of the validity of the entry said "I can't see where the claims are that this character meet..." Man, Baron slammed me for having *that* in public view ... looked pretty demeaning, if you catch my drift. I think that kind of language, coupled with the fact that the original flagger didn't do much to research Baron, should strongly be discouraged. Thanks, and sorry to bitch! User: Scribblerman 12:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Searches are case-sensitive - Baron Wolman is still there and likely to remain so given that the AfD has mostly keep votes per the added information. Just zis Guy you know? 21:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, since you're the nominator (as janitor granted) and it's gonna be a keep result anyway, couldn't you just close as speedy keep? AFD is stressful for newcomers and might just put this guy's mind at rest. --kingboyk 22:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

esoteric programming languages

Hi, would you be interested in voting on this monster before I let it loose on AfD? Cheers, —Ruud 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's a lot of work. I'd endorse nominations of all of those you've tagged, for the well-researched reasons you give. It's probably best to try to bundle some in groups, but separate the ones which might be contentious. Do you have jnothman's AfD helper? Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my word. I've never seen anything quite like it! --kingboyk 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep everything in one template but make sure that people vote seperatle on each article. I've tried grouping three of four together in the past but that just resulted in people voting "Delete all expect A", "Delete all except B", .. and have the thing end in a no consensus or no result. —Ruud 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud, whatever you decide there is a barnstar in it for you. That is a diligent and thoughtful piece of work. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He makes a good point. I've had bundled AFDs go that way too. On the other hand, with that many listings I can foresee a number of relistings due to lack of consensus... Sorry I can't be more constructive at the moment but I'm still rather taken aback by the enormity of his effort! --kingboyk 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a novel approach. WP:AFD/Esoteric programming languages; list of languages; vote for all except individually commented; individual lines for each; clear comment that you can vote for all, and if you vote for an individual that overrides the vote for all in that instance. Maybe that would work Just zis Guy you know? 22:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRACS' Foundational beliefs

Hi JZG,

User:Arbustoo is claiming that the Foundational beliefs section on TRACS must be summarized and canot stay as it is, which is copied from there site (with citation). Is this true? If not, please set hm straight. He's persisting that he's right and I know you just edited the entry, but left the so-called infringement. It seems to me that something like this doesn't need to be sumarized, but you're the admin and certainly know more than I. --No Jobs 00:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you editting again, but I guess you forgot to respond to the questions on your talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ for your concerns. Directly copying a large amount of material is in violation of the WP:Copyright. Arbusto 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting attack on Guy and myself[23]. Arbusto 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not previously tell you to stay away from my talk page? Itake 00:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny. Arbusto 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just drop it. Both of you. Just zis Guy you know? 09:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRACS list kept due to "no consensus"

I think the closing admin. did not see the talk nor go through the contrib. history of all the voters (that admin did not even originally mention the puppets[24]). Thus, I asked the admin. who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members for his tally. I mean these are obvious puppets[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]While Hayson[34] admitted he voted in the Afd because he was told to [35] Thus, those 10 votes discounted bring my tally to 4 keep votes verses 15 delete votes. That certainly is a consensus to delete. Arbusto 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to take it to WP:DRV. Let's see what happens there. Just zis Guy you know? 15:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mailer Diablo wrote check user "confirmed that BryanW4C (talk · contribs),Jeffrey Tuttle (talk · contribs),Jon Calla (talk · contribs),No Jobs (talk · contribs),Angelina Y. (talk · contribs),Shindig Me (talk · contribs), and Doe, John (talk · contribs) are Gastrich sockpuppets. Inconclusive results on all the rest. Confirmed socks are indef banned."- [36] See the check user report:[37]. I had a feeling those were Jason, not Ben. Arbusto 04:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, evidently. I had not thought Gastrich was that stupid. Just zis Guy you know? 09:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a back handed compliment if I ever heard one. FloNight ^talk 13:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

What a mess. So far the only printed source i have access to is from Sadie Plant and i'm really not looking forward to digging through it. Anything you find which looks like neoist ludibrium could you dump a link to it in User:EricR/Psychogeography? I'll see what i find while trying to figure out who's to blame for unleashing psychogeography on the world.

Thanks, EricR 19:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up

I thought I'd best let you know about this thread on AN, just in case you didn't notice it. --kingboyk 19:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Gastrich sock?

Shoooop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Makes Gastrichy edits and quotes policy on his second edit. JoshuaZ 12:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I blocked that one, definitely a sock of someone, don't really care who. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Gastrich socks at Bob Cornuke. User deleting cited criticism and see the talk page for a log of edits. Arbusto 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Lick

If you want to unblock him, I won't object, though gaming Wikipedia by going off-site to invite other people to come and vandalize seems blockable, to me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it would be the wrong thing to unblock him. He has been extremely disruptive, and has used several confirmed sockpuppets (and there are a few unconfirmed ones), has abused other editors, has deleted posts from his talk page, has posted trolling posts on the abortion talk page, has edit warred, and has invited people on his blog to come to Wikipedia and change the abortion definition from "An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus resulting in or from its death" to things like "An abortion liberates the uterus" and "An abortion is fertilization for flowers". And two other users turned up and started making those edits. A check user didn't rule out that it was Pro-Lick himself. Also, I think admins do block indefinitely with particularly bad users, even if they have some good edits. I've seen it happen on quite a few occasions. Anyway, if you are considering unblocking, please check that you have all the information about him before you do so. In particular on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pro-Lick.2FHalliburton_Shill.2C_sockpuppetry_and_disruption and at WP:RFCU and its archives. And that you're sure that he has the intention of sticking to Wikipedia policy and contributing properly. His blog certainly doesn't give that impression. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A block is unquestionably justified, probably a longish one at that. An indef-block is, IMO, harder to defend, since Pro-Lick did seem to have at least some valid edits, albeitb heavily outweighed by argumentation. But I'm not going to start undoing that, if anyone is going to change it it should be Zoe, perhaps after discussing with other admins to see what kind of period others would support. Even Gastrich only got blocked for a year (although given current behaviour that year may never actually expire). This is, of course, just my $0.02. Just zis Guy you know? 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal needs wacking

198.170.191.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeated vandalism, now removing warnings from his talkpage and insulting editors. JoshuaZ 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk has wielded the cluebat. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Christ Centered Ministries

I posted on the talk page [38] here to you. Please join me there and tell me which schools are claiming accreditation through this agency that does not accredit schools. --Steve Jackson1 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, I suspect only Gastrich, or one of his meat puppets, would be aware of this this information since it is his organisation. And a quick visit to check user for this new user ....sigh. By the way i am going to ignore Pooua's arb com, I hope this is OK. David D. (Talk) 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source on the talk that shows at least one school has tried to pass it off as accreditation. My source demonstrates Shepherd Bible College (a diploma mill) prior to Aug. 2004 claimed it was accredited by Online Christ Centered Ministries (an accreditation mill with no US government approval). Arbusto 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though "Shepherd Bible College" may have called its membership an "accreditation", which, according to its web site, it is not doing now, it still holds no bearing on whether or not Online Christ Ministries is an accreditation body or whether Online Christ Ministries calls itself an accreditor. According to their internet site, it doesn't accredit and they don't claim accreditation privileges. In fact, there is no evidence that Online CM ever claimed to accredit. --207.200.116.204 00:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Sherpherd's website[39]

SBC Accreditations:

Florida Department of Education: Commission for Independent Education
WWAC: Worldwide Accreditation Commission
OCCM

So according to the diploma mill's website this webpage offer accredition. For that reason alone since this information is out there and viewer's might be misled that OCCM offers approval or accreditation through a recognized median it should stay. Also "there is no evidence that Online CM ever claimed to accredit" is very interesting coming from its creator. Arbusto 01:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely related to this section, see[40]. Arbusto 01:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, your opinion on this matter is welcome here or here. --Particulate Matters 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Arbusto's link above from archive.org is misleading. Shepherd's current site doesn't say this, plus Shepherd's archived page from Dec. 2005 says, in bold letters, that Online Christ Centered Ministries does not accredit. [41]

This information is somewhat moot, besides showing that Arbusto is either a poor researcher or a deceptive one. The entry is for accrediting agencies and Online Christ Centered Ministries is not and has never been an accreditor, in any way, shape, or form; according to their present and past copies of their site. --Particulate Matters 21:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Referral

I have taken you to the arbitration committee. You can find the request in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbustoo, Arbusto, Just zis Guy you know?, David D..Pooua 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should prove diverting. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this [42] made by Pooua. Note nothing is deleted, but he drastically changed the context of his post. The first line of David's reply to me was "Also, just because Jack Hyles hid his background from his students (i assume this since Pooua didn't hear any of the controverisies) this is even more reason to have some of it in the article."

It was changed so the first line replied to me was by Pooua: "I want to delete them because they are not substantiated claims. Also, they violate the Wikipedia NPOV." That is drastically changing the context in which David was replying to. Not to mention breaking up other people's paragraphs modifies the meaning of the paragraph. His reply[43]. Arbusto 05:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point that out in your Arb Com description of the dif. It greatly strengthens your point. JoshuaZ 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeta Karabolli

Hello Guy, long time we haven't quareled or talked. I was wondering what you think about this page Elisabeta Karabolli, it appears to be partially verifiable. More specifically, I'm worried about the proper sourcing for the photos. I wouldn't nominate it for deletion however I think it could use some more sources. What do you think? Thank you. --CyclePat 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will look. Good work supporting Oldwindybear, by the way. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a hard one. The thing I've started to realize is that you never quite get exactly what you want But I tried hard on that one. Because of that and because its from you, that means a lot. Thank you! --CyclePat 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien 5

Thanks for your comments on deletion review. I know that there is an article waiting to be written about the will there/won't there saga of Alien 5. Unfortunately the article that was deleted wasn't it. I am trying to use it as a starting point to create a better article that people will have no reason to object to. Would you mind taking a look at User:Pcb21/Alien 5 and giving me feedback? Thanks, Pcb21 Pete 17:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm afraid you may be asking the wrong person. I am not a fan of including speculation in any form; Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. Just zis Guy you know? 10:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not a fan of including speculation in any form" - out of interest, where do you draw the line? Clearly you'll only allow others to write about films only when they are in cinemas. But what about away from popular culture? Next general election and who'll be Prime Minister then? WHen is Wembley going to open? Who might contest the US Prez election. What might replace Ground Zero? Where is the Olympic Village planned to be? etc etc. Prominent people speculate about things all the time, and a lot of it is worth recording. I'd be interested to hear whether in your ideal Wikipedia you'd really delete all that, or whether you meant something else? Pcb21 Pete 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he and I tend to be on the same page on these things: what you're suggesting (in regards to Alien 5 at least) is pure speculation, is not even in pre-production, isn't mentioned on IMDB and doesn't have anybody saying "Yes, we're doing it." There was a similar issue when somebody was trying to create a Predator 3 article without any backup data, saying it had been suggested but nothing had been done about it. Wikipedia's not a rumor mill or movie information site. It's an encyclopedia. General elections are scheduled and as such there are articles about them. The Freedom Tower (and Lord I hate THAT name) is getting ready to be built. The sum of all human knowledge is certainly worth recording, but a timeline of when Sigourney Weaver said she was interested in a fifth Alien movie isn't encyclopediac, not by a long shot. RasputinAXP c

12:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] isn't encyclopedic, not by a long shot". Well we are always going to disagree. I will stick with my and Wikipedia's original core goals of neutrality and verifiability, as these are objective. Notability will forever be a more subjective beast. Pcb21 Pete 12:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule I think Wikipedia (which is an encyclopaedia, after all, not a news source) should only really consider covering things after they have happened, and prefereably long enough after they have happened that we have a decent historical perspective and several non-trivial secondary sources of post-facto analysis and comment. Just zis Guy you know? 12:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're contributing to the wrong encyclopedia then, sir ;). Pcb21 Pete 12:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, this one has a policy of WP:NOT being a crystal ball. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you know, we are back to where I joined this conversation over at WP:DR, with someone again willfully mispresenting what the whole "no crystal ball" policy is about. Sometimes I get the impression that some users actively avoid learning from others. Pcb21 Pete 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are conflating two separate things. In the case of this aprticular article, I was of the view thta it was delete-worthy as being unverifiable, trivial and crufty. You asked if I was interested in looking at a Mk. II version - my response is that I am not the right person for that, since in general I am not a fan of speculative articles at all, sourced or not, for reasons I stated above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning

Anon. user removing a diploma mill at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Thanks. Arbusto 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I created an article about the school that was getting removed (Buxton University). The school's website is instantdegrees.com Arbusto 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comments needed Talk:University Degree Program and a separate issue concerning Talk:Liberty University. Arbusto 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRT

This isn't article related. You seem like a PRT opponent, but much more rational than Ken Avidor. I'm interested in discussion it with someone who isn't a huge fan of PRT, just to get a good perspective. Let me know if you're interesetd too/have the time. Fresheneesz 06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an opponent of PRT, I'm justr sceptical of the inflated claims made by its proponents; they seem to eb predicated on assumptions of vast infrastructure which are incredibly unlikely to eb build because we already have a personal transportation infrastructure which people like. Plus I think I see a barrow being pushed here, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Avidor is rational enough, mind, he's just more involved with sustainable transport campaigning than I am, and he has seen some particularly egregious examples of PRT pushing.

For what it's worth I think your comments re finances are correct, but we need to have a published secondary source which says the same thing before we can include it in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call stating facts about a technology "pushing a barrow", and Avidor's outrageous claims (most of them proven to be outright misstatement of facts or quotes taken out of context) rational? Seriously, JzG, your bias in this matter is very disconcerting. By the way, you yourself said that Wikipedia is not about predicting the future, and yet you seem to doing just that in saying it's unlikely to be built. What does it matter how likely you think it is? This should be about presenting facts, including pro and con in the debate, and letting readers decide. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call it as I see it. It's interesting that you accuse me of bias - not that I would ever claim to be free of bias, but actually I'm quite an enthusiast for technology, I have an engineering degree. Seems to me that you and Ken are both pursuing an agenda. Which is fine, as long as you don't confuse NPOV with MPOV. Ken thinks it's too pro PRT, you think it's too anti. Doesn't that say something to you? You will note that my personal opinions tend not to stray too obviously into article space. I am happy to speculate here on the likelihood of any city commisisoning or allowing an extensive grid of guideways sufficient to compete with road transport - I happen to think that the combination of autocentrism, selfishness, massive vested interest, and massive existing investment, makes a wholesale change to PRT highly unlikely in my view, but I await with interest the Heathrow trial, which is right near me. If they extended it the 20 miles or so to Reading station I am absolutely certain they would get some takers, the coach service is constantly held up by traffic congestion and the train is around ninety dollars return and involves going into Paddington and back out, which is why I always get chauffeured to Heathrow when flying on business. Just zis Guy you know? 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think I see a barrow being pushed here" noting that I read the comment headered below, what do you mean? Do you mean that by trying to talk to you, i'm pushing a barrow? If thats what you mean, I guess I'm trying to push one. But only to those that want it, which is why I asked. Anyway.. damn. I need to find a sane opponent to talk to! I would be up for discussing with Avidor, but he's probably too busy to talk directly to a moron PRT cultist like me.

"I'm just sceptical of the inflated claims made by its proponents"

Which inflated claims are you talking about? I'm sure there are some, but I've done some extensive calculations myself and the results are extraordinary. Extraordinary enough to look very inflated, even when taking inexpensive cost claims and doubling or tripling them.

Btw, since you said barrow pushing is "not what Wikipedia is for", do you mean that you don't want to discuss non-article related junk on talk pages here? Fresheneesz 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lot s of questions. No, talking to me is not pushing a barrow. That refers to the evident intent by a number of editors to promote the PRT agenda. I don't think it's malicious, just enthusiasm. Inflated claims: like carrying more traffic than a four-lane freeway and 35% mode switching, neither of which is supportable form the actual trials run to date. No, I have absolutely no problem debating and discussing issues on Talk pages. The more the merrier, it helps all concerned to explore the boundaries of consensus. But it mustn't spill over into the articles, of course. Just the facts, Ma'am, as they say in the old-time cop shows :-) Just zis Guy you know? 07:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"That refers to the evident intent by a number of editors to promote the PRT agenda" - yet you seem very sympathetic to those who wish to squash PRT under a sea of misleading propaganda. By the way, which editors specifically are you referring to, that are "promoting the PRT agenda"? I've seen only one editor on that article that has an absolutely unquestioned and unswervable bias, and he's definitely not a proponent. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that Avidor is so extreme in his views that even relatively neutral parties would look like rabid proponents when offset against him?
"like carrying more traffic than a four-lane freeway" - I don't remember if this was ever in the article, but if it was, and if it was backed up with scientific and mathematical proof, and if it was clearly stated that it's as yet unproven in practice, what's wrong with including it? If we are willing to include something as vaguely speculative as what regulatory agencies will do, then why can't we include mathematically sound discussions on capacity at low headways (which, by the way, is entirely feasible in the technological sense -- nobody here is disputing that, even LDemery or Transit Guest)?
"35% mode switching" - how can you be an engineer and scoff at analysis and simulation? These are tools that are in common use in many engineering disciplines today. As long as they are noted as simulation results (they are!) then why is it an "inflated claim" to include them? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing a barrow

I have to say, Guy, every time I see you using the expression "pushing a barrow" I go wha? Is that a real expression? You're the only person I've ever heard using it. It's clear (I hope) what it means from context, but... is it a UK thing? What barrow? Wheelbarrow, mound of earth, castrated pig? Who would push a castrated pig? :) · rodii · 19:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I picked it up around the 'pedia. I guess it's a reference to a market trader's barrow, trying to sell something by shouting loudly about it, but now I'll have to find out :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Looks a lot like it's from Down Under. Just zis Guy you know? 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't habitually push a barrow, I habitually get on a soapbox, but I may reconsider. There's something very Dickensonian about pushing a barrow. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm picturing Emily Dickinson and a castrated pig here... · rodii · 04:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

JzG, I see you reverted my contribution to the List of unrecognized accrediting assocations. I did research, posted on the talk page, and posted on your talk page before making my contribution. And all you can do is revert in silence. What gives? --Particulate Matters 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What gives is that there is some credible evidence of degree mills claiming OCCM membership in their published pretences at accreditation, and there are some editors in good standing supporting the entry, and you have zero edit history outside of this subject which (WP:AGF aside) is problematic for me, given the long history of tendentious editing on this and related subjects. Which is, I know, wrong of me, but my reserves of Mary Poppins good faith have run dry. Just zis Guy you know? 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very relevant question for you. Is there even one shred of evidence from Online Christ Centered Ministries, in their site, materials, statements, etc., that indicates they offer any sort of accreditation? What it looks like to me is Shepherd Bible College listed them on their Accreditation page, then Online Christ complained to them, and they clarified who Online Christ really was. Just a theory, but it would make sense to me. Leave it to some to crucify an organization, and even continue to mislabel an organization, because another organization temporarily misspoke about them. --Particulate Matters 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk page: the article header as written is ambiguous. It is reasonable to construe it as including those groups which degree mills use to pretend credibility. Plus it seems to be run by Gastrich, who is a huge fan of degree mills. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're not dealing in facts and reality. You're dealing in assumptions and labels. "Gastrich this" and "degree mill" that. The fact is that you avoided my question above because you know the answer and it doesn't fit into your bias.

Online Christ Centered Ministries is not an accreditor and has never claimed to be one. Shepherd Bible College, whether it be a "degree mill" or not is not the point, but thanks for revealing your opinion. Shepherd clearly states, in bold letters, that Online Christ Centered Ministries is not an accreditor. All that is left is your bias and Arbusto's bias and it's awfully difficult to pit facts against one's bias because facts never matter.

Currently, Shepherd Bible College does not claim to have even a membership with the Online Christ Centered Ministries.[44] Likewise, the Online Christ Centered Ministries does not claim to have Shepherd Bible College as a member.[45] So, all we're talking about is Arbusto finding, on archive.org, that Shepherd temporarily listed their membership with Online Christ Centered Ministries on their accreditation page, without specifically stating that they were a membership organization and not an accreditor; which was subsequently removed.

And you want to list Online Christ Centered Ministries on the List of unrecognized accrediting associations. This is incorrect. --Particulate Matters 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation is at an end. Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need some advice.

I'm having some trouble with a couple of users, User:Linnwood and User:Fourohfour, and I'd really appreciate some admin advice. I feel very close to flipping out and becoming intentionally uncivil, but that hasn't happened yet. In short, these two have been leaving insulting messages on my user talk page, even after I've told both of them to stay off. It all started after I merged Donkey punch, Cleveland steamer, Hot carl, and Dirty Sanchez (sex). I figured these four articles were terrible but undeletable, given the wide support such sexual jokes and legends get around here, so I merged them thinking that this would provide some kind of context for the concept. I got insulting messages from Linnwood and Fourohfour after that and was reverted. I really wouldn't have cared about being reverted. It's the messages and the attitude that bothered me. Linnwood is calling me a vandal in every edit summary he writes on Donkey punch. Fourohfour is watching my user talk page. User:Badlydrawnjeff left a message on my talk page which I belatedly decided to answer, only to find that Fourohfour had already been there and decided to warn Jeff that I was unreasonable and wouldn't listen to him. I don't appreciate Fourohfour responding to comments on my talk page for me. Linnwood has also identified me as a "vandal" on Talk:Donkey punch. I'm not interested in a prolonged edit-war over Donkey punch. I just want these two to get lost, quit bothering me, and quit leaving slanderous comments here, thither, and yon about me. I'll refrain temporarily from editing Donkey punch and refrain from conversing with these two until this matter is resolved. Brian G. Crawford 23:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's sexcruft, and uncited at that. But the articles are not going to get dleeted, because there are too many Beavis and Butthead clones who think this kind of shit is funny. Keep it neutral, keep to the cited, verifiable facts. Anything uncited, take it to talk - but keep calm. Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make *very* clear that if I violated WP:CIVIL on Brian's talk page, it was after he had done the same via a sarcastic and unnecessary comment weaselled inside what he later implied was a formal warning. You can read more here and here. Brian has also made some strange accusations at another user's talk page that I spoke on his behalf. I don't know which comments these accusations refer to, but I am not aware of *ever* having spoken on his behalf.

I do not appreciate being made out to be the guilty party here. Since the close of the sarcastic "warning" dispute, I have kept my comments addressed to Brian formal and minimal. The simple fact is that I disagree with what I believe to be his motives, and the manner in which he keen to clear out information wholesale rather than making the effort to request its verification. He made quite clear his personal dislike of the Liberty Dollar, which was why I questioned his motives in trying to have something that was (to my mind) clearly notable deleted. Ditto comments on "Dirty Sanchez" at his old user page. Is this slander? I don't think so.

Finally, for the record, I'm responding to this discussion not because I was keeping an eye on Brian, but because I had cause to leave comment for JzG regarding another matter and noticed it here. (See the edit history for confirmation). Fourohfour 11:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole situation is ridiculous, frankly. These are uncited and in several cases quite possibly spurious articles, and should not be taken seriously by anyone. I'm astonished that you consider it worth fighting over, especially since Brian is definfitely doing the Right Thing in WP terms, which is trying to wrestle it down to what is verifiable. I suggest you co-operate in that, and maybe the articles will improve instead of being a battleground. Just zis Guy you know? 08:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westcountryinfo

Might it be appropriate for his userpage to have a {{userpage}} tag, or is that his decision? Шизомби 03:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

third person

You're going to love this edit. The sign if things to come. David D. (Talk) 05:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Hi. I wonder if you could look at Talk:Julia Goldsworthy and the related edits and let me know if I'm doing the right thing? I asked on WP:AN/I but didn't get a reply. I've tried to engage with the user in question but to no avail. A look at it from an admin who hasn't been involved with the article would be appreciated. Thanks. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another POV pusher. I blocked it for a while and left a strong message, let's see if that makes any difference. Let me know if they come back ina different guise. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJay

Why is it that I get the feeling that I'm dealing with Gastrich everytime I respond to this guy? He's certainly doing a grand job of walking in his footsteps, what with the bowdlerization campaign he's conducting at accreditation and Christian school articles. Almost too good to just be reading from the same playbook, I'd say. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh words, but I can't say the same thought has never occurred to me. However, if I thought it was Gastrich I would have blocked the account by now. You could request checkuser to set your mind at rest, though. Just zis Guy you know? 21:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem we will have into the future, that Gastrich is not so original. His phenotype is replicated in many churchs. having said this, I had a look through JJay's edit history and he does appears to have different interests and editing habits to Gastrich. Of course, it could be a clever hoax, but I doubt it. More to the point, his main obsession seems to be verifiable data with regard to the lists. With repect to OCCM, i actually agree with him (and Gastrich; blush) David D. (Talk) 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJay's constant misuse of policy and claiming POV also put similiar thoughts in my mind. It's not Gastrich though. Arbusto 01:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. JJay is different. JJay is also very often a valuable editor, and there is nothing wrong with asking for citations. Just zis Guy you know? 07:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images tagged for deletion

You did not give any rationale for the deletion of Image:BlindFaithBlindFaith.jpg or Image:Virgin Killer.jpg. These appear to be album covers used in articles on the albums, which is fair use. What is the problem? Just zis Guy you know? 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't images of nude girls under 13 against the law in the US? I don't know what pertinent laws they have in their jurisdictions if they're from another country but if those albums are from the US, I don't know how they possibly slipped through the cracks. --Shultz IV 09:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. If that is the rationale, please state it. You didn't state any rationale. But if those albums are legally sold in the US (which I think they are) then the covers must be legal. Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello, this is Cayden. You sent me, or I think it was you, a comment about the article: "Dreamworldiens." We are a small private organization, and whether or not I can prove it to you is beside the point. Do you know of any websites that would let us become public?

Possibly Wikicities, or set up a Myspace page. Just zis Guy you know? 07:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Owain using a sockpuppet?

I strongly suspect that MonMan (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Owain (talk · contribs). The pattern of behaviour, and mutual backing-up on Talk pages, and incidental details like residence in Newport is very, very telling. If MonMan is not a sockpuppet of Owain then he is stalking him. Either way, this requires Admin investigation.--Mais oui! 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example: [46]. --Mais oui! 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated matter (I hope): looks like Gibraltar is warming up again, with at least a couple of the same protagonists as at the recent Falkland Islands edit war! There seems to be a fascination for a certain type of User in getting far too proprietorial over these types of Wikipedia article. Example: User:Gibraltarian. --Mais oui! 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will check out MonMan. The best solution, as always, is to stick to verifiable fact, not lose your temper with the POV-pushers, and call for the cavalry if it gets bad. I am doind "stuff" today but will try and look in. Just zis Guy you know? 07:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Please also have a look at this account:

82.26.197.74 (talk · contribs), which rapidly became registered as Stringops (talk · contribs) (note the interesting User name: String Operations? ... indeed?

See my comments made here. For your information, Strigops is a genus of parrot, and the n was a typo. Your allegations as regards to every little detail of my account are bordering on paranoia! Stringops 12:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The activities on these two accounts are also highly suspect:

82.26.197.74 first edit (only made 21 edits before becoming Stringops): Traditional counties of the British Isles
Stringops first edit: Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit (this guy knows Wikipedia like the back of his hand!!! ... supposedly on only their 22nd Edit??? no, no, no, no, no!), followed 10 edits later by their first edit on Templates for deletion!
this one is a cracker: Scotlandshire - note how they use the correct {{subst:afd1}} template straight off - this is an "old-hand".

Thanks, --Mais oui! 09:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks suspicious too: 80.255 (talk · contribs) (suddenly ceased activity in December). --Mais oui! 09:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately CheckUser cannot go as far back as December, but here is a very interesting edit:

G-Man is once again doing completely unacceptable things to Middlesex. I think it's time we rallied the troops and got this ridiculous farce of a policy put to rest. I feel pretty sure that there will be no "consensus" in favour of the current situation when this goes to the vote. I'm drafting a proposal for change; email me via wikipedia if you have any suggestions.

"Troops"... indeed? Or "troop"?--Mais oui! 11:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to keep the peace as much as possible here; would it be possible to refer your indefinite block of User:MonMan to an independent admin? Owain has pointed out that you were far from uninvolved in the dispute, and in that he has a point. Another admin will almost certainly back up your decision, but doing so will stop any accusations of bias and help things settle down. A q uilina 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review your block on MonMan based on the evidence presented at the AN/I? Thanks. Petros471 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I am perfectly happy to defend or withdraw any action. If anyone can find the place where I stated I am perfect, I will be pleased to amend it :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TCAarchives

Thanks for giving us a chance to save the content. We're finished now, you can delete it or do whatever you have to do.

No trouble. Now removed. Just zis Guy you know? 07:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Punch 'civil' accusations

Regarding your comment on my page, I have replied there. However, I would appreciate a response ASAP; it's frustrating to be accused of something without knowing exactly which comments you are referring to. As far as I am aware, nothing I said on talk:Donkey punch violated WP:CIVIL. And I'm not clear about the 'blanking' comments either. Fourohfour 10:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JG?

Bob_Paul_Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would like your opinion. It isn't crystal clear like most. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty likely to me. Just zis Guy you know? 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faith healing and fraud white washed at Smith Wigglesworth

I don't want to break the 3RR, but a user is white washing a citation that Smith Wigglesworth claimed he could raise the dead and he was a faith healer (yet never "healed" his daughter's serious hearing loss). In one edit summary[47] he wrote the very telling "I stayed away from his faith healing for a reason, please don't go on about it." Arbusto 21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Warning"

I repeatedly stood up for what I believed, and look what happens. I try to maintain an NPOV perspective, but I get a "warning". Well, hopefully, you'll be happy because I am not going to make any worthwhile edits for some time. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make good-faith edits. If they get reverted, discuss them on the Talk page. The 3 revert rule says that you may not simply keep reverting if your version is disputed, the reasons for this policy are sound. Just zis Guy you know? 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing vandalism warnings[48].

I believed them to be good-faith edits. I wanted to discuss them. However, they continued to put that POV crap in their mentioning his works even though I attempted to reach consensus, so I had no other choice to revert theirs, in turn. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That warning didn't belong on my talk page. My edits weren't vandalism. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the best of your judgement, do you honestly believe that this is an NPOV statement: "His claims to heal the sick and "raise the dead" have never been proven[4]. According to some, he claimed to have ressurrected 14 people and his wife.[5][6] Wigglesworth's daughter had a serious hearing loss, which despite his purported abilities he failed to heal[7]. In fact, he "prayed frequently" for his daughter to be healed." Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so, yes. Do you have a problem with noting that his claims were unproven? Or his failure to heal his daughter? Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a problem with it. I mentioned his ministry in Sweden and his healing very briefly in the article (which I rewrote) for a reason. I believe that intentionally not mentioning his healing and acheivements in the article would be the best thing, considering it wouldn't allow anyone (fundamentalists nor atheists/skeptics) to contribute to whether they believe he could or not. Nevertheless, Arbustoo goes in, and inserts his belief (and apparently the belief of many more) that Wigglesworth's acts were false. Which I find POV. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a man who lived in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. If he genuinely and provably raised the dead, it would be one of the most celebrated events in modern history. I know some faith healers, not one of them would make this claim. It is highly questionable, and to repeat it without comment would be absurd. Just zis Guy you know? 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia is a forum for such discussion on whether his claims were valid or not. I thought we were here to give a biography, not mudsling. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss on the Wigglesworth talk page. But it got me no where, especially when Arbustoo dodges consensus and goes ahead and inserts that paragraph. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell informed consensus is that raising the dead does not happen. Do feel free to cite verifiable evidence from reliable sources to prove otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on about that, I am concerned with the tone of that paragraph and its location. It was inserted into the "later life" subsection, which, in itself is completely unrelated, and; second, I don't know If I believe he raised the dead, but I don't know he didn't either. Please consider rewording it and moving it to a section which is related. There are also some typos. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if you were concerned about its location and the tone, why did you completely remove it repeatedly? Arbusto 00:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbusto is right - if you had said that on the Talk page an acommodation could have been reached very quickly, but instead you went into a revert war. Just zis Guy you know? 07:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonMan?

Did you see my request on the AN/I about possibly lifting this block? I'm appealing directly to you since you were the one who placed it. From my reading of Essjay's findings, there was some wiggle in them (ie not a concrete same IP "this is a sock", but a "well its the same geographic area...could be sock, could be meat, could be just a friend"). As Thatcher131 pointed out (when they withdrew their objection), MonMan has edited a couple articles outside of the shared set between him and Owain (Newport and Kutaisi)...and a similar slice of time from Owain's history doesn't show edits around that area of articles, which is a kind of slip I'd suspect a sock or meat to make.

Neither user has ever been blocked before, which I would expect to see even sock/meat withstanding for trying to get around 3rr or something and being blocked for disruption.

So, all I am asking is for a possible doubt in your mind that these could be two separate accounts. Two guys who know each other, from the same region, who have similar strong feelings. As I said on AN/I, if they really have a sock/meat connection they will surely slip up again and will end up being blocked in the future. I value your judgement as an admin, and as I know we've encountered each other in our duties I'd hope you hold a similar opinion of my judgement. I'm not willing to override your block based on the evidence because of the esteem I hold you in, but I'm asking that you consider lifting it as time served. Thanks! --Syrthiss 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have very similar thoughts to Syrthiss on this. Whether or not anyone involved in this dispute (and that certainly includes Mais Oui) should be blocked (for a short time, for disruption/edit warring), I do not feel the sockpuppet evidence is strong enough to support an indefinite block. Please note that I did register concern on AN/I and dropped you a short note above asking you to review. Just like Syrthiss I am not questioning you as an admin, simply asking you to think again on this particular block. Thanks. Petros471 15:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonMan emailed me. I am prepared to accept his statement that he is not Owain. Just zis Guy you know? 08:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On an unrelated note, you've got a nice website :) Petros471 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you work on bad article ideas...

... but I take issue about Tom Cruise's left big toe being verifiable (in the sense of the wikipedia policy. Where are your credible third party sources? For great justice. 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that tomcruisesleftbigtoe.com is not counted as a reliable source? Surely you jest? Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, there is no such website. So the question is, why are you saying that it is verifiable? The reason that I press this point is that I notice that, when promoting the idea of notability, a lot of people disparage verfiability by saying something like this. I wonder why, when it's clearly not verifiable. Yours, For great justice. 18:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect example of sarchasm (the gulf between the author of sarcastic remark and the recipient who doesn't get it). We are actually in agreement: that which is notable is not always verifiable (and therefore may not be included); that which is verifiable is not always notable (and therefore should not be included). See also Cleveland steamer, kept by default because of arm-waving assertions of notability, despite the total absence of reliable sources. Go figure. Just zis Guy you know? 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand what sarcasm is, the problem is the repeated assertion that all kinds of things are verifiable in the wp sense of the word (cats, toes etc). I do not agree that notability has any useful meaning at all. I'm not sure of the relevance of 'cleveland steamer', or the value of talking about it's notability. I think, were you to apply the standards of verifiability to it, you would end up with a shorter article than you have now. As it stands, I can say it's notable, and you can say it's not, and we're none the wiser because all it means is 'I like it', or 'I don't like it'. What I object to is the continual undermining of the standard of verifiability with comments like 'but <substitute whatever stupid example you like> is verifiable', when it's not, as a way to promote the pseudo standard of 'I want to keep it'. For great justice. 06:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that you could find a reliable source for the existence of Tom Cruise's left big toe. A picture of him barefoot in a nationally distributed magazine would do it. Same with "my cat" - or in my case my bike; I can certainly find mentions on TV, radio and the press of my bike, but that does not make my bike notable. And the "my cat" argument is usually advanced by those pointing out that somethign is unencyclopaedically trivial, the things advanced by the keep-it-because-I-want-to brigade are "notable, I've heard of it" (as if notable trumps verifiable). Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communique Conferencing

Hi.. just wanted to apologize for some incorrect links. After reading the policies further i'll also understand if you would like to delete the page for communique_conferencing. I'm not trying to gain links, but provide information as people like to research our company. Your website is a wonderful resource.

Thank you. Curtis

A common enough mistake, don't lose any sleep over it. Please do create yourself an account and work with the community, I'm sure there is potential for you to help in other ways :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex scandal

Hello Just zis Guy you know? : ) If you have time, please give a comment about the inclusion of Clay Aiken in the Sex scandal article. Talk:Sex scandal#Clay Aiken Evidently there is an attempt to add gossip about Clay Aiken to several articles. Editors at Clay Aiken worked for weeks to come up with an acceptable compromise, only to have the rejected gossip inserted in Sex scandal. regards, FloNight ^talk 12:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably not a sex scandal within the accepted meaning of the term. Just one more example of why categories beat lists, IMO. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. If it continues, I'll need your expertise to investigate the IP and new user accounts adding Aiken text all over the place. Hopefully it won't come to that. FloNight ^talk 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Steamer

Hi, you claim this is unverifiable but with a simple Google search I was able to find 83,000 references to the sexual act. JohnnyBGood 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought this up, I thought we might be able to better understand each other's position by trying to get this article properly verified as per wp policy WP:V and the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you can stomach it, that is. ;) For great justice. 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, not one of those references is a reliable source. And after two AfDs there are still no reliable sources cited, there never have been. This looks to me like a protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 07:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. If, instead of wasting time oil-wrestling snakes with 'notability', people had questioned the verifiability of this article, it would likely not exist. All 'notability' allows you to do, is win the afd if you and your friends who like/hate the article outnumber the others. For great justice. 08:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For great justice., we did that during the 2nd Afd. Delete No verifiable reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. FloNight talk 04:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC) My comment from second Afd. FloNight ^talk 08:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there it is. It turns out that when people vote of afd, they pay little or no attention to policy. Frustrating, isn't it? Still, you could likely get rid of all but the defintion? I mean, looking at it, there really isn't any verifiable content aside from that. For great justice. 08:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Club

By common consent the editing of articles on companies by their employees can be problematic. I suggest you take a step back.

--Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for watching over the PC Club page... But if Wikipedia can have pages like TravelMate 2300 that is a verbatim copy of an advertisement, or the likes of Emachines can link to reviews, I see no reason why system reviews cannot be posted for PC Club. If you would please notice, only one of them is mentioned on their website anyway -- and the newest one of the three is NOT favorable (note the tech support score at the preceding link to HardOCP), which is why all THREE are added to the wiki page. I really should note on the Wiki article that PC Club HQ representatives were eager to supply true rebuttals for such a poor score (instead of gloss over the issue like so many other companies do) and that HardOCP gave "kudos to PC Club for giving [them] some explanations as to what is going on with their company." I'll leave that addition to your discretion.

And if an article about any company was created by a person who wasn't associated with it in some way, why in the world would they do it? Wouldn't someone who is involved with a company be better equipped to make an informative (and less biased) page than someone who is not or even has animosity toward it? Your comment "By common consent the editing of articles on companies by their employees can be problematic. I suggest you take a step back." makes no sense. Apple may as well have third parties like Microsoft or Dell write their website for them by that logic, and leave Apple out of contribution to their own website.

--CelticWonder 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that it can't have those things. They should be cleaned up. The possible exception is the link to a PC magazine review, which should be properly included using the <ref> syntax, which is there to support the assertion that not all their machines were crap.

As to editing your own employer, that is not a good idea. Really. Look at WP:NPOV. How can you be entirely neutral about a company that pays your salary? Look at WP:NOR. Can you show that every fact you've included has been published in reputabl;e secondary sources, rather than being stuff you know by virtue of your position? These are firm and non-negotiable policies. Just zis Guy you know? 08:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from HardOCP's method: HardOCP doesn’t "review" systems, we evaluate the experiences they facilitate. We order the system the same as you would and evaluate every aspect of the end-user experience. -- They are quite as unbiased as can get, which is why consumers value their opinion so much, same as Steve's DigiCams. I 100% agree that a review is worthless if it is influenced in some way. Here is a link to a non-affiliated member of HardOCP's forum, providing a critique of HardOCP and of PC Club's response.

Just because taking initiative to create a Wiki article is considered by some as a bad idea doesn't conclusively mean that it is -- and the WP:BAI page states in the first paragraph that "it is not policy", merely a suggestion. The PC Club page, with all necessary fact checking, citations, and NPOV, is one of those exceptions.

This page passes the test of WP:NOR - Reputable Publication, paragraph 3, in that EVERY fact is now cited from outside sources.

I didn't just sit down one day and type up a bunch of bs PR for PC Club. Note: WP:NOR - Good Research -- One of my motivations was a recent mention of our former CEO, and almost by accident I noticed that PC Club didn't have a wiki page, after almost 14 years of business. If the worst anyone can do to derail my "POV" is bicker about whether the word often or sometimes is used on the page, I'm doing a pretty good job. The only info I cannot prove as of yet is the information about the current CEO Jeff Lan because it's just what I've been told, so I added the {{fact}} tags.

Thanks for reading. --CelticWonder 17:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being messed with?

Sgrayban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I created a redirect of American Council of Private Colleges and Universities to Hamilton University because, according to CBS News' 60 Minutes, "it turns out the accreditation board, like the referral service, was set up by Hamilton, for Hamilton."[49] Well, my redirect was deleted and a supposed article on the subject was started. Go through the history on his talk and all his contributions. Then I noticed this[50]. Am I being messed with? Arbusto 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, get this the other person who posted on his talk was Nr9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (First edit December 2005 second and subsequent edits April 8, 2006.) Arbusto 10:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Sgrayban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first edit April 25, 2005; next edit November 24, 2005; next edit March 14, 2006; next edit March 24, 2006; next edit April 2, 2006; next April 3; next April 7 Arbusto 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the connection. User:NSLE deleted the redirect (no idea why), the re-creation by User:Sgrayban is suitably neutral and shows no obvious sign of whitewashing; NSLE speedied it while Sgrayban was writing up the additional content by the looks of it. Nothing sinister to my eyes. Just zis Guy you know? 10:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Arbusto 10:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Council of Private Colleges and Universities

American Council of Private Colleges and Universities had previously redirected to Hamilton University, and I was informed in IRC that there is nothing special linking the two when asked to deal with the redirect, so I deleted it as "implausible typo", which, honestly, may have stretched it a bit, but hey.. NSL E _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 10:42 UTC (2006-04-11)

I created a redirect of American Council of Private Colleges and Universities to Hamilton University because, according to CBS News' 60 Minutes, "it turns out the accreditation board, like the referral service, was set up by Hamilton, for Hamilton."[51] Arbusto 10:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a credible link. I don't usually just delete things, even though I can - I normally tag them for speedy or prod so they gat a second set of eyes. No harm done, though. Just zis Guy you know? 11:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page: 222 kilobytes

Are you going for a wiki record Guy? :P You're certainly in the running! --kingboyk 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Archived. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]