User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:53, 28 May 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Dec-2024. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.

Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me

JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • archives • privacy policy )

Read This First

If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.

Terms of Service
By posting on this page you accept the JzG Terms of Service. I endeavour to satisfy good-faith requests to the best of my ability, but if you act like a dick, I will call you a dick. If you act like a troll, I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off. If you want something from me, your best bet is not to demand it on pain of shopping me to ArbCom, because that way is pretty much guaranteed to piss me off to the extent that I will do whatever I can to thwart your plans. This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. I can be provoked, it's not even terribly difficult. You may find, if you provoke me enough, that I will do something I later regret. Only remember, you may regret it more. I am a middle-aged surly bastard who spends his working day wrestling spammers and beating Windows with a stick, but I am capable of seeing good in the most improbable people if they don't go out of their way to make me do otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user posts using a British sense of humour and does not repress those instantaneous motions of merriment.

Sunday is the anniversary of my sister's death. I will be available only intermittently over the next four days as I am taking my parents to inter the ashes, a journey of some hundreds of miles. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Very sorry to hear that (and worse for your parents of course). Best wishes (I have parents and we 3 kids are alive, thriving and close), SqueakBox 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes to you and your family.--MONGO 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From me as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there, Guy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes Guy.. may you be given peace of mind during this troubled time. SirFozzie 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strong - all the best, Martinp23 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My best wishes. Wikidan829 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of you at this time. I hope the journey will not be too hard on your parents, and you will find solace together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep remembering. Georgewilliamherbert 22:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry about your sister. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there, Guy. Your memories about your sister will always live on within you. --SunStar Net ^talk 10:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathies to you, also, Guy. Having lost my own sister earlier this year, I know well the sense of displacement and, to coin a phrase, "cosmic loneliness" that follows. Regarding your comments about my surname and edit of my entry, you would lose your pound, sir, for my family has always had the truly Scottish spelling of Stuart (before it got Frenchified), and my edit was to remove a link to a personal blog, because I am about to work on a controversial project, and did not want crazies of the Star Trek variety or any other feeling that they knew me too well.

in this wikicommunity it's easy to forget about the real life, every user name here represents. My prayer is that you and your family find strength and comfort in this most trying time. My sympathies, R. Baley 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Calvert

I recently created an article on Byron Calvert, an American Neo Nazi leader using sources from my research. Problem is Calvert himself has become wise to it and disputes the accuracy of my sources. His followers have also taken it upon themselves to blank the article. Advice please!

Dianetics

I note that you replaced Dianetics in the section of the pseudoscience list article reserved for topics that have specifically been labeled pseudoscience by mainstream scientific bodies even though the sources clearly do not meet this criterion. Since you are also clearly aware of this rule and simply yet chose to ignore it, I can only assume that you are intent on disruption. Please desist.Davkal 21:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have remove Dianetics from the list of pseudosciences. Please desist. Guy (Help!) 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge Admin

I am writing to you to apologise for an insult placed on the talk page of the Rouge Admin article; my comments were the result of inebriation and fatigue, as well as my profound conviction that I was actually asleep at the time. Please accept my apologies for my rather hasty and unkind comments. I will endeavour to cease editing under the influence (EUI) forthwith. Thank you for understanding, all the best, Whiskey in the Jar 22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Is it really necessary to make a statement on that arbitration request if is just going to be utterly incivil and add nothing to the discussion. You, as an admin should know better - especially in an arbitration request. Had it been on talk pages I would have let it slide, but that is ridiculous. Viridae ^Talk 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is a complete waste of everybody's time. Plus it does add something to the debate: it adds my opinion that Jeff is beating a dead horse. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QZ DRV Closure

Guy, please undo the speedy close of this discussion. The primary problem here is speedy closes of discussions prior to the formation of consensus. I specifically point you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Early closure of discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful. GRBerry 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe the primary problem is Jeff. I fully support taking this to RFC, what I do not want to see is yet another rehash of the same crap. We need to wait at least a month before even thinking about running this through any kind of deletion or review process again. There is no problem with the original deletion, per policy, but there is a problem with Jeff on a crusade. Take it to a slower and more wide-ranging process, and let people explore the issues in a nuanced way, and get it off DRV because that is only ever going to be a pitched battle, which will not help in any measurable way, whoever wins. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll disagree that Jeff is the problem. I had to take a break from Wikipedia over the weekend to avoid participating in the wheel war myself. I think the deletions, and especially the speedy closes of the DRVs, are abusive actions by administrators as administrators. GRBerry 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If i'm the problem, feel free to pile on at the RfC i just opened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School of Accounting and Management

Colinlezama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of making unproductive edits[1] is curently removing an unaccredited school from the wikilist. The user was warned on the article talk and his/her talk page. I have repeatedly asked for a source, but the reply was "will continually remove their names from the list."[2] Please watch this user. If I remember correctly this user three articles about diploma mills that got deleted such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Accounting and Management. Arbustoo 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euphoria Volume 1

I noticed you deleted Both Euphoria Volume 1 and PF project. I can't see what the article looked like but for every other volume of Euphoria (Euphoria (compilations)) the pages are fine. Maybe the article sucked, but just so you know Euphoria volume 1 was hella popular, and its notability doesn't really need to be asserted other than "was the first in the series of Euphoria (compilations)". I don't really know what to say here, because don't know why exactly you deleted the articles, but there should definitely be articles under those names. If they fitted the format of the other volumes in the series and you came across them and deemed them not notable, you were wrong. I'm confused, help. Howboutpete 14:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original author of the album listing on Wikipedia, and I just found this morning that it's gone. Apparently it doesn't satisfy the Unremarkable People/Companies/Groups condition of WP:CSD#A7. Can someone help me understand what I did wrong, and how to make sure I can submit articles that will last? My goal is to fill out the entire discography of that series, because I own all the albums. Nmcspadden 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badlychosenexpletives

Please, no more telling people to "fuck right off" in the current discussion. It's only serving to inflame things further. I predict that this will be sent to arbitration again, and that the arbitration committee will, if it accepts it, do so on the grounds of editor conduct, most likely of several of the involved parties. Please ensure that your conduct is exemplary, so that you avoid becoming deeply embroiled in that. That wouldn't be good, in my view. Uncle G 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's British usage, different from US usage. Seriously. It means, more or less, that I am absolutely outraged that he would make such a suggestion, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It means a lot of things, and that's part of the problem. Simply saying the far less ambiguous "I'm outraged at that." instead in the current discussions is a better course, because it will forestall the diversions from the main issues that you know will otherwise occur further down the road if this comes to the arbitration committee. Save yourself from some future grief. Uncle G 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page claim

I see you are blaming your bad typing on a personal injury. Wehre does that leave the rest of us? SqueakBox 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Thanks for the smile tha brought :-) Guy (Help!) 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, me I blame the machete blow to the head I receivved 2 and a half years back that messed my vision something chronic at the time for my typos although the loss of vision isnt really much of an issue now. My Mum is a trained typist and is as bad as anyone I know for typos (she's approaching 70 and like my Dad an online enthusiast), SqueakBox 00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xyience

Hey, I noticed that the Xyience article has been deleted and protected. Did it not go to an AFD discussion? If it didn't, maybe it should have as it is a reasonably notable brand. Chicken Wing 05:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment???

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pilotguy&oldid=132826934

"I would like to bring to your attention the following pages: Shane Ruttle Martinez, Marxist Candidate Page, Paul Fromm, and Paul Fromm (neo-Nazi). The same users are at each page putting forth the same unsourced information that is very POV. They also edit out any sourced negative information. The users I speak of are user:Frank Pais, user:AnnieHall, user:Black as pitch, user:Paul Fromm (blocked, I believe), and the new account user:CmrdMariategui. I do not have enough information to go to the sock puppet page to warrant an investigation, and I only came onto the pages based on the BLP claims. It seems that they have a strange understanding of BLP and POV that only positive information (especially unsourced positive information) is the only thing allowed on a page, and that sources with vague connection to the line they claim to be references for are allowed to "prove" notability of the figure mentioned. It is very strange and seems to be a great problem. For information connecting the people as being sockpuppets or possibly a group that uses numbers to avoid the Three R Rule, see the histories of the pages I cited above or my user page to see where a newly created name said I was "wrong" about a page and reverted where I removed blatantly wrong sources that didn't actually match the lines which they were included on. SanchiTachi 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)"

I really don't know what to do here. I really don't want to be a part of this debate. I voted to endorse removal of certain claims in the Shane Ruttle Martinez article and now SanchiTachi appears to be on some sort of vendetta; just won't seem to let it go. She/he is now accusing me of potentially being a sockpuppet.

I might not be the best editor on wikipedia, but I don't think I deserve this abuse merely because of a decision I made concerning the relevence of information. Basically I'm looking for advice. I really don't want to have anything to do with SanchiTachi but I don't want her/him to continue making baseless accusations against me. God, seems so much like high school it's ridiculous. AnnieHall 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fatty

I note from the deletion logs that you deleted the above article. I'd like to see the above article undeleted or at least a version moved into user space please. Catchpole 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the dust has settled that may well be possible, but right now it's probably not a good idea. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean. Catchpole 15:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there is an RfC and an ArbCom case pending, and no obvious forum for discussing this subject in isolation from the history of the problem article. I am trying to think of how that might be accomplished, but right now I can't think of a way. I am asking some arbs and other old-timers what they think. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Fatty article you deleted had been moved from a userspace draft. I'm thinking we should just put it back there. I do think this deletion may need to be argued separately: my understanding was that those wanting deletion had agreed the meme was notable but the kid was not, and this article seems like an attempt to address that. But yeah, let's not do that NOW while feelings are so raw. What do you think? Mango juice^talk 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that is pretty much how I see it too. ~~I'll move it back to userspace in a minute.~~ It's still at User:DeLarge/Little Fatty. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Little Fatty. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -N 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not the words. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect Nardman, that is pathetic. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit harsh. Ill-judged, though, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Warren Allen Smith's edits really "spam"?

Hello JzG -- I have just posted this message on Talk:Warren Allen Smith. I notice that you have been deleting some of his links, so I'm drawing your attention to my comments. Maybe you're right, but I'm not so sure. I certainly found Smith's correspondence with Paul Blanshard and Brand Blanshard interesting. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO THE EDITORS WHO CONSIDER WARREN ALLEN SMITH'S LINKS TO BE SPAM -- I have tracked Smith's edits a bit in recent months and I'm not so sure they should be dismissed as spam. Smith is a venerable periodical editor who corresponded with many notable thinkers of the twentieth century over many decades. He has scanned some of this correspondence and established links to the images. I am a university professor and personally have found some of this material rather interesting and, arguably, historically significant. Be careful what you delete. You may be getting it wrong. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the link summaries make it perfectly plain that he is pursuing an agenda. Plus he should not be linking his own site. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Allen Smith

Any thoughts on Mr. Smith's self-created Wikipedia page and it's very lengthy bibliography? He also has inserted himself in quite a few aritcles using his many monikers. --David Shankbone 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the self-references form other articles as patent vanity, and AfD the autobiography. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now badlyplacedaxes (-:

Image:Axegrind.jpg

Please put it directly on Commons, since you have licensed it as free content. Uncle G 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I have now done that. I had to fix my commons account first. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname

Hey man, I don't know who to report this to. I don't know why, but I have a feeling this nickname isn't appropriate. Seeing the one contribution they put on the Tornado article, I don't know if they should be around. Wikidan829 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was deleted or what, the link I put here doesn't work, but if you look at the recent history in Tornado you'll see who it is.

(disclaimer : I work for ADVFN plc)

why delete 'ADVFN' (may 4th) as blatant advertising? article is old and other similiar articles, e.g. yahoo finance, bloomberg, etc remain

Re:Spoiler warnings

There is no such consensus. The only disruption of Wikipedia is being performed by the individuals who choose to remove the spoiler tags. (Ibaranoff24 15:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Read the debate again. There seems to me to be a strong groundswell of support for the idea that spoiler tags are generally redundant in plot sections, and in classic works. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it that way too, and consequently I have been cautiously removing spoiler tags on book articles on my watchlist. So far nobody has objected. I never liked them, always thought them unencyclopedic, and I think we will be well rid of them. --Guinnog 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Regarding your edits to my talk page [3], please refrain from removing other users comments to me without my consent. According to WP:CANVASS: "It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive." I highly doubt that User:Ttguy's comments would qualify as disruptive, as it was in direct relation with an action of mine, namely a request for semi-protection. Thanks. --CA387 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And usually not. This was a case where it's not. Thanks for playing troll-the-admin, though. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I invite your comment here. You may wish to refer to this diff, or the associated talk page comment if you are interested in endorsing the RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review Merky's most recent claims that I am a member of some organized group to push my pov on 9/11 articles with Tom Harrison and MONGO. His source is Wikipedia Review.Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

Greenland nature galleries

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. Honestly? I have no idea. Why not be bold? :-) Guy (Help!) 08:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which account is my sock puppet?

Which account is my sockpuppet and where is the checkuser request that justifies you blocking my IP address?

What I have done is Wikipedia:Canvassing. Canvassing is "overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial"

On this page it says "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem."

I don't believe I have engaged in an aggressive propaganda campaign.

It has been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet has a statement that contradicts [Wikipedia:Canvassing]]. So which one is actual policy? I would have though that a page called Wikipedia:Canvassing would define the policy on Canvassing especially since I have not engaged in any sockpuppetry.

If you can not produce evidence of my sockpuppetry will you appologise for besmirching my reputation?

Ttguy 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for JzG

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your work on Wikipedia:Deletion review, and stopping POV-pushers on articles e.g. Men in skirts etc. and for being a great admin! SunStar Net ^talk 10:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful Deletion

Hello, Please undelete the article "Dynamic Software" ... I have no idea why you deleted it. It was a company stub and the company develops Windows based software. I have been working on the cite's for the refernces I came back to work on the article and it was deleted.

Please undelete or have an explaination why you deleted my work in progress.

Al Costanzo

talk added: 5/25/07 11:20am est

See comments att the extant deletio review. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kilt Question

Hallo...I noticed you made some edits recently on Men's skirts, and I wanted to ask you a bit of a procedural question about the subject. The article mentions Utilikilts, so I threw in a wikilink to the article which I helped turn from a stub to only-slightly-less-of-a-stub-but-still-kind-of-stubby, which is at The Utilikilts Company. Now, when I did this I noticed there's two redirects floating around out there. One is Utilikilts which I made, and pointed at The Utilikilts Company article. The other is Utilikilt (singular) and points to the main Kilts article. So, my question is where ought those redirects point? Seems to me they ought to both go to the same spot, and I'd lean towards The Utilikilts Company article, but I'm not sure.

And on a side note, was I right to linkify that mention of Utilikilts in Men's Skirts, or is that advertising? I've no connection to the Utilikilts Co., and advertising was not my intention...but looking at the page today, I realize it might be seen as such. Anyhoo...you seem quite the knowledgeable type, so I thought I'd ask you. Don't you like being high-profile? --InkSplotch 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the wrong person, as far as I'm concerned the whole POV-pushing mess can be redirected to the bitbucket. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't too concerned on the skirts article (I haven't even really read it). I was more curious about the redirects. Anyways, thanks for your time. --InkSplotch 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think I've just been trolled once too often to be anything other than completely jaded about the whole subject. Hopefully you'll find someone slightly more sympathetic to the subject who can help out - maybe Uncle G, he's a good guy. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam-whitelist Review

Hi Guy, I hope you don't mind me contacting you directly. I was just wondering if you could use some help with the whitelist review. You or another admin would obviously still have to remove any superfluous entries from the whitelist yourself but I guess I could help out with the grunt work. I understand if you'd rather do it yourself. Cheers -- Seed 2.0 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, all assistance gratefully received. Shockingly dull work, but worthy! Guy (Help!) 20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a nice change from the disambiguation/typo fixing stuff I've been doing lately but, yeah, not terribly exciting. ;) I've tried to keep my notes sufficiently detailed but concise. Oh, and I'll be back to help with rest but I'll probably only do a few at a time since I'm a bit busy (and, technically, on a wikibreak) at the moment. Cheers Seed 2.0 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The (don't kill me) skirts again

Hi, Guy. I understand if you never want to hear the word "skirt" again as long as you live, but I was hoping you'd care to cast an eye on my skirmish here: [4] [5] [6] Amazing behavior... are those editors on the talkpage in your opinion separate people? If not, might a CheckUser + a community ban be the way to go? I'm pretty pissed off about that abusive last edit by Bardsandwarriors, as I'm no kind of a hand with the accursed cite template, and was forced to hand-knit a separate note in order to include a quotation in it, grrr. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is precisely what I expected and precisely why that page should have been drowned at birth and left salted. Kilt is notable, cross-dressing is notable, and the rest is frantic attempts by a few individuals to change the way society views their dressing habits. Wikipedia is not the place to fix the fact that Western society views skirt-wearing by men as an eccentricity. The AfD should have been closed as delete, the arguments for keep amounted to "we know this is not notable, not important, not neutral and inflates the importance of an utterly insignificant movement, but we like it." I have had it up to here with these people. They are abusing Wikipedia to try to rewrite history and reshape popular opinion. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We now have an edit war and a talkpage war. Sigh. I'm already tired of Mugaliens all over again. If somebody tells me to take it to Dispute Resolution, I'll tell them to talk to Bishzilla. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Plus ça change :-( Guy (Help!) 14:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Foundation

I reverted your deletion of a source link that referred readers to a review/summary hosted by Amazon. From your comments on WikiEN-l on 19 Mar 07, I understand that you don't agree with this, but other editors clearly disagreed. If you feel very strongly about this one link to a commercial site out of the twenty-seven sources cited in the article footnotes we can discuss it further at the article talk page. Cheers, DickClarkMises 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reexamining the article, I noticed that I cited two Amazon sources, not just one. My mistake on that. DickClarkMises 18:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't notice the affiliate ID in the url... Guy (Help!) 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely missed that. Nice catch! DickClarkMises 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bore, I'm going through a great load of amazon links right now nuking them or their affiliate IDs. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

No offense, but the situation is difficult enough without adding joke edits to the mix. Please refrain from engaging in such behavior in the future. Thanks. —David Levy 20:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't do "vandalism". We just ignore all rules. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you insist on treating the policy as a joke. —David Levy 21:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's unfortunate that you insist on treating the first, oldest and most anarchic of policies as some kind of religious tenet. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I simply asked you to please refrain from performing joke edits to a policy page. —David Levy 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mistake light-heartedness for joke edits. Less is more, after all. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Changes to the NO MA'AM article

Hey there. You've removed a certain paragraph from the NO MA'AM article, stating that the reference is not really a reference. I accepted what you said, put the paragraph back but without the reference. Still, you removed the paragraph again. What's wrong with it? Is it not relevant that NO MA'AM is popular among fans of Married... with Children and that T-Shirt are being sold? # Ido50 (talk to me), at 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has no obvious relevance or significance. The assertion is not verifiable per WP:ATT, and in any case is just trivia of no evident importance. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need help

Guy, can you please send me a copy of the deleted article List of protest songs to my email? I need it for a school project. Thanks! I promise I will not recreate it on Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blatent POV

Trying to get an answer (because I really don't know) regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as myth. What POV do you think is splitting off? jbolden1517^Talk 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a POV fork. There is only one subject. Re-integrate, then discuss what the title should be. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

In light of this proposal, thank you for your services to the project.Baka man 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Romero

You're about my favourite editor, and so I was happy to revert back the changes you made at this page, whcih have subsequenty been challenged on the talk page. If you feel so inclined, pls explain your logic for your edit. I am, of course, in agreement. Eusebeus 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kohs' co-conspirator

Looks like someone else is looking to make a buck off of Wikipedia. See here and my response here. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This earlier edit to his User Page is also, shall we say, telling. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: FYI, I escalated this to WP:AN/I. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books

You might want to tell the tens, or even hundreds, of other editors who do the same thing for many, many books pages. But, ok... ~ clearthought 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive

I will not be contributing to wikipedia anymore so you might watch the unaccredited schools and Gastrich puppeting. Arbustoo 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Software

I am trying to correct the article you nominated for deletion. This is the very first article I ever wrote. I am trying to do this correctly. Any suggestions would be welcome. It took me a but of time to understand how to get the refs to work properly. Any help would be appreciated. I moved the article into the NS from my sandbox so I could get input but instead you want to delete it even before I write it. Could you explain to me what I have done so wrong in writing it so I can fix it?

Thanks Al

The main problem here is that your every action increases the suspicion that you have a connection with the subject. Do you? If you do, it wold be best to be open about it and help people understand where you are coming from. I don't understand your passion for this particular piece of spam-enabling software, and your comparing the firm to Microsoft was not a good call. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people by name

At the ANI discussion, you said "The fact that there are over a thousand subpages rather makes the point that it is hopelessly unmaintainable". I agree, which is why I came up with the proposals to move from that system to a more maintainable one that would only require people to add a correctly pipe-sorted category to every biographical article. I was actively trying to get people to discuss this (while somehow missing the DRV) and was preparing to find a way of generating a single LoPbN list to ensure careful and methodical transfer of information from that system to the new one. I still fail to see what was so bad about my proposal that people just ignored it and said delete? My proposal would only have delayed the deletion, would have led to an orderly transition and avoided all this drama. During the MfD I pointed at the list of people's names beginning with X that existed at LoPbN. Can you, or anyone, without undeleting the old page, tell me what biographical pages we have under "X". I can use the system I've set up here to find living people under "X", here, but then compare that to the Wikipedia LoPbN 'X' page here (a mirror that someone at ANI was kind enough to point out). Again, I fail to see how a category-based system of accessing the "X biography list" is a bad thing, and I was proposing to carefully transfer the information from one system to the other. Why did people just ignore what I was trying to do? <sigh> I know I'm going over the top here, mainly because I'm typing away here when I should be packing. But I hope some people listen to what I am saying. Sorry to rant like this on your talk page. Carcharoth 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those episode articles

Not that I'm complaining, but why did you revert them? Do you have plans to revert the rest of them or was it because of the "edit warring" going on in those specific ones? TTN 19:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, that's all. RfC is the way to go I think, or maybe mediation. Mind you, fans won't usually settle for anything less than a full size article on every single episode. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, this guy isn't even a fan. He just wants all episodes of all series to have articles for some reason. I guess I'll have to go for mediation eventually, even though the guideline is clear in what needs to happen to the episodes. (RfC's always seem to take too long to be useful). TTN 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two problem editors: Matthew and the ex-Nintendo guy. I blocked the ex-Nintendo guy for 48 hours to give everyone else a rest, he looks like an obsessive. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're arguing on two different fronts, but they are both in disputes with me. Matthew wants episode articles, while Nintendo is quite obsessed with having those character articles ("they're culturally important to the world"). TTN 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank

If she had died recently, and the only thing really known about her was she was a Nazi victim, and her diary had been published post-humously, you'd delete the article. Am I right? -N 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, because that's not what happened. Most likely I'd redirect to an article on the diary, if it was garnering significant critical interest, but it's impossible to say because that was over half a century ago and these days it would be a blog not a diary, you simply cannot compare such vastly different cases. Who knows, if those kids write a book that's still selling after half a century they may end up with an article as long as Anne Frank's. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that, and there's been tremendous scholarly research on her life and play and movie adaptations. I'm just want you to know that although you stated that my examples had no basis in reality, I wasn't just being a jerk. I was trying to make you understand the other side of the argument. -N 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the other side of the argument, but choosing hyperbolic examples doesn't help anyone, I'm afraid. I think my later comment says where I stand on this. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who speedied these articles in the first place, I plan to respond to the serious arguments presented on the other side of the ledger, including yours, N. The whole process would be a lot easier on both sides without the inflated rhetoric, though, and that goes for both sides too. JzG, thanks for the support. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Right to Edit

Hello, I started an essay that has the same name with a previously deleted one (but the contents are opposite), can you restore history please? Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is far too close to poking Merkey with a pointy stick, there is no way we need that right now. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But my essay and the one before are opposite, and I spent time on this. Who is Merkey? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, please just drop it, trust me on this: we don't need this particular dispute escalated or perpetuated. Maybe later. Much later. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But can I just ask who is Jeffery and who is Merkey, and where is a "crusade"? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, haha, I'm pretty sure he is that computer guy, right? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. He is also an authority on some things we could do with help on, and notoriously vulnerable to trolling. And perhaps also vulnerable to interpret as trolling things which aren't necessarily actually trolling. So please just let it go. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spy a troll

[7] -N 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 335: / Line 335: @@
 :::::Ahh, haha, I'm pretty sure he is [[Jeff V. Merkey|that computer guy, right]]? [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
+:::::* Yup.  He is also an authority on some things we could do with help on, and notoriously vulnerable to trolling.  And perhaps also vulnerable to interpret as trolling things which aren't necessarily actually trolling.  So please just let it go.  Thanks.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 ==I spy a troll==
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUsernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=134183079&oldid=134180285] -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)