User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the complete talk archive dump. See the archive index here for individual archives divided by size.

Don't add to this page (not that you can, actually). For the active talk page for Jeffrey O. Gustafson go here.

Contents

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

(Sam_Spade | talk | contributions) 14:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Photoshopped pic

Hi! I came across the photoshopped pic on your user page today and, as part of the wikipedia image tagging effort, I listed it as yours and noted that you release it into the public domain for copyright purposes. If this is at all inaccurate, please feel free to correct it. --InShaneee 16:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not OK, so I've changed it so that the copyright is a little more clear. Thanks for the heads-up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human Torch

1) Double-Redirects. Currently, Human Torch redirects to a redirect, which doesn't work as a anti-DOS measure. If you move something to the wrong page, move it BACK, THEN move it to the right page.

Um. I haven't a clue what to do there.

2) You wanted to move Original Human Torch to Human Torch? Okay, you may be a Golden Age fan, but guess which one is more well known (not least with a certain movie on the way).

For the record, I am not a Golden Age fan any more than I am a fan of the current Marvel output; in fact the opposite may be a more accurate assessment. My concern lies entirely in the realm of maintaining accuracy. The Human Torch from 1938 is and has always been just the Human Torch. That's his name, not "Original" Human Torch, which as we all know was only added on later as a descriptor. It is an accurate descriptor, of course, but it is not *his name*, or title, so it shouldn't be the first thing folks see. With Johnny Storm, to say "Human Torch (Johnny Storm)" is accurate, becasue that's his name and title. Who's more well known should not be relevant when pursuing accuracy.

I'll leave Human Torch as a {{disamb}}, rather than cycle HT (JS) back to where it was, but that "WARNING! This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding." message is there for a reason.

Indeed. That's why I went to the admins.

You've got more links to fix, BTW...- SoM 12:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Four of them needed changing, which I have done. The rest are referring specifically to the Golden Age Human Torch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(P.S. Not sure of the ettiquette here, but I've put this reply in both our talk pages. -JOG)

WGA

Salve, Jeffrey!
Saw your comment on Talk:WGA_screenwriting_credit_system about WGA banning a pseudonym for a creator's credit. I've incorporated that material into the article. Thanks for the tip. PedanticallySpeaking 17:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your postings (and be logged on)

Hi,

Either you are not logging on and are making edits nevertheless, or someone else has been editing your user page.

What on Earth are you talking about? The last accidental unsigned edit to my user page was more than three weeks ago by me. If it was a chronic problem, I'd understand your concern, but I always sign in nowadays, so your little bit of initiative is entirely perplexing.

Usually it is better to log on and to sign postings, etc. I think most people automatically suspect anonymous edits as being the work of vandals, whereas the name of a known and trusted editor in an edit summary means (to me at least) that I can trust that it has been a reasonable and proper bit of editing.

P0M 4 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)

While many vandals are anonymous, some utilize User Names. And while many editors who make solid contributions utilize User Names, some chose to be anonymous. And I am under no obligation to anyone to sign in - if I wish to edit anonymously, I shall [have the right] do so. Thank you for your concern.
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! 5 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Hi, I should have given you more information. I was following some somewhat strange edits by an un-logged-on contributor and came to your talk page. Check your history, or take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson&diff=14199380&oldid=14163301

Somebody did make some changes, and I didn't read all of them or I would have realized that it couldn't very well have been you.

P0M 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

It wasn't. It was a vandal, which you would have easily ascertained if you looked at the History which clearly shows me reverting that user's changes a few hours after they vandalized my page. This is more of a case of really not paying attention.
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 5 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Wikistress

Hello Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

Hello Redwolf24!

I see you got a lot of wikistress. May I ask why?

No, no, I haven't any. I have the red wikistress thingee there because it looks cool, mostly. I had an explanation under it, but now I've made it more clear so as to not send out any more false alarms.

I do hope you don't leave wikipedia. Every time we lose a competent wikipedian, the idiot ratio gets a bit higher :-( Redwolf24 06:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nuthin' to worry about here, I plan on using wikipedia for a while. Thanks for your concern! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fonzie Award

Thats for being cool with a k. That would look good on the side of your page, neh? Redwolf24 07:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[[ |thumb|right|Here's the Fonzie award for being such a cool cat.]]

Carlos Mencia

Good job! --Duk 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Anons

The person vandalizing the Mencia page with false info (the Ned Holness references, etc.) is Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, a Xxx Xxxxxxx grad student. (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx). Feel free to email xxx if xxx persists.

pic: http://www.xxxx.xxx/xxxxx/xxxx/xx/xxxx.xxx

The above comment was made by anon user 65.0.101.241 at 02:59, 27 July 2005. Censored by Jeffrey O. Gustafson to protect anonymity of alleged.

Have you got proof? And more importantly, how does one random anonymous user in Baton Rouge know the supposed identity of another alleged user supposedly in Xxxxx? Or is this an attempted smear?
I appreciate the help, but there is no way to know the information you provided is accurate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The following unsigned message to which I replied was left by an anonymous user at 03:43, 31 July 2005, utilizing an IP numbered 65.0.101.241 (talk - Contributions). This user's previous message to me is archived right above this.

(to Jeff - this is from Mencia's himself, clarification on the name issue)

Mencia's what? Is the quote below taken from a website or magazine (etc.) interview, and if so, which one?

"This year, a week or so before the show, the guys stated to ride my ass about the fact that my birth name is Ned… relax, I’ll tell you the story about that… My birth father’s name is Roberto Holness. When I was born, my mother was pissed off at my father and decided not give me his last name. She had a brother who was married but unable to have children. (Her brother is the one in my family that came to America first and then went back to Honduras to get the rest of his family). My mother did the most amazing thing a parent could do; she gave me to her brother and his wife to be raised as their own. I grew up with my biological mother and father, brothers and sisters living just next door. Out of respect for my birth father, my mom and dad decided I should still use his name even though my legal name (the one on my birth certificate) is Ned Arnel Mencia. All through school I was known as Ned Holness. I’ve never try to hide this, but only people who know me personally or have heard and or read all of my interviews and articles would know this."

Cool. But, if this is from an interview, I need a source. Do not take my initial skepticism as rank disbelief: it is mearly caution due to the anonymoty of the IPs.
In any event, whoever you are, thanks for looking into this for me, as I have (heretofore) been unable to find a source for the "Ned Holness" info. Additional message info and a question has been left on your (65.0.101.241)'s talk page. Providing the most accurate information available to those who will read the Mencia entry is of the utmost inportance, and your help is appreciated. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Response:
http://www.carlosmencia.com/oldwebsite/stories.htm
From the official site, which was updated three weeks ago and the stories presently don't appear on the new version yet. Anonymous IP addy or otherwise, a page on the official seems to cement the issue. (-65.0.101.241 at 02:04, 1 August 2005)
Indeed it does, and information has properly been added to the Mencia page. Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Spam: Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

You voted in the VfD for Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić. I believe that this article was deleted without a clear consensus, and have nominated the article for undeletion. If you would like to contribute to the VfU discussion, please follow the link above. Thanks for your time! Pburka 00:27, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

WikiStress

Sorry about your Wikistress level. Despite what you had posted under the WikiStress meter, perhaps a barnstar still could help you

Image:Barnstar.png

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not stressed out. Thanks for the barnstar, though. You're the second person to give me an award for that wikimeter... Hmm... maybe I'm onto something... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Spoo

If though woulds't seek the predecessor of the Spoo, consider the shmoo - 05:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Unsigned comment from User:Nunh-huh

Cool, thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Spoo Peer Review

This is a copy of the peer review request I put up on my article Spoo.

This is the first "real" article I wrote for wikipedia, and after months and months of tweaking, and after a recent reformatting, I think that maybe, just maybe, it has a fighting chance at, at least, a decent FA-nomination. So, I'm looking for copy-editing and suggestions or fixes that it might need. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a good article on a rather obscure topic (see the quote at the top of my user page) but - I sorry to have to break this to you, if you were not already aware - you are going to face rather virulent accusations that this is mere "fancruft".
I figured (from the beginning) as much may happen.
There have been a couple of massive bunfights over Starfleet ranks and insignia, which failed on WP:FAC twice, spilling much blood in the process (see first nom and second nom for indications of the sorts of objections you may face).
I'm familiar with both debates. Indeed I would have voted for the page, but the problem is that most of it is conjecture and original research.
The best you can do is to write entirely objectively, citing everything you can from published sources, and leaving out speculation unless its source can be cited. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Which I do believe I have done. I've got 19 21 footnotes to various sources, mostly JMS posts and the show itself, and the only instance of conjecture (the fanon relating to spoo price volatility) is referenced as well.
I aggree, it's a bit obscure, but I feel it meets the criteria. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, given the discussion above, I won't argue your deletion of my shmoo contribution, which you labeled unfounded speculation. I think the parallel is strong, and the evidence is suggestive of either a conscious tribute or an unconscious influence on JMS. But I agree that there's no obvious citation for it that I can footnote. --Smwpu85 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Ahoy, and thanks for your contribution. Before you added it, after the suggestion of (another?) user, I tried, to no avail, to find any specific reference by JMS to shmoo, Al Capp, or L'il Abner. While it is a distinct possibility there was some influence (though it is outside of JMS's previously acknowledged fraim of reference), there is no evidence to support it, and the etymology of the name as well as the evolution and uses of it throughout JMS's career indicates there is absolutely no relation between shmoo and spoo. I'll look through old interviews next, but chances are if he didn't mention it online it won't be anywhere else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason not to add a See also: schmoo and explain the possible link there... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Done --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 12:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Very crufty indeed. But it shows how objective language and referencing can do miracles. Besides, being cruft isn't an actionable objection. - Mgm|(talk) 12:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed! See this FA, for instance --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems to have been copy-edited to a significant degree, it's stable, accurate, and comprehensive; it's uncontroversial, has a bunch of sources, isn't too long, and isn't too short (it's longer than AEJ Collins, for instance, even sans references), meets the standards of style and, I feel, has fine prose... Does anyone see anything actionable that could prevent a successful Featured Article run? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the article is on the short side the current use section which is currently written in bulletpoint form could definately be spun out into prose.
When I originally drafted the article, the section was planned as prose, but it was kindof choppy - so bullets seemed appropriate. I just put it into prose, per your suggestion, and rearranged a couple of references. It seems a bit short as a result, but entirely workable.
Also avoid single floating sentences - they make the text seem disjointed.--nixie 09:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you referring to the lead for the Etymology section? I've tried moving it around, but it only really works where it is. Or are you talking about the JMS quote in the same section? The quote is long enough to warrant indentation, but is easily recombined if it presents a major prose issue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappa

I found the Spoo article through the Peer Review page - Amazon says the ISBN for the US hardback of the Frank Zappa book is ISBN: 0318414767. I don't have my UK paperback to hand, but I believe he talks there or elsewhere about finding one of his guitarists playing an intricate solo to himself backstage, and cutting him off with the single word "spoo!". The UK music press used to use the word "fretwanker" for the same sort of thing, over-long guitar soloing done mainly for the enjoyment of the player rather than the audience. --  ajn (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoo FAC

This is a copy of the Featured Article Candidacy on my article Spoo

I wrote this page at first in April, and it was leaps and bounds above its previous versions, thrice deleted and copyvio. Since then I have made many, many small edits to the page, beefing up the prose, adding references galore, and taking it through Peer Review. As it is an article on a fictional foodstuff, the images are limited to fair use; however, I have provided detailed explinations of each image's qualifications and their relevance to the article at hand. I would not bother nominating this if it did not meet the criteria - it is accurate and very comprehensive, with nearly all references accessible online for easy further reading and verification, plus plenty of wikilinks; it is extremely stable and decidedly uncontroversial. It is shorter than many FA's, but it is longer than others - even sans the reference section it is still longer than the recently Main Page'd AEJ Collins. And, yeah, its a bit crufty, but that should not be a roadblock if one looks at other FA's such as Wario. Even if you don't vote, I hope you, kind reader, enjoy the read.

  • Self-nomination, and, (of course) Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely comprehensive and stable. Provides an interesting and funny read. --maclean25 04:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott's concerns:

  • Oppose. Big style errors - see Wikipedia:MoS. For instance, there are some sentences written in second person. Scott Ritchie 06:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
In regards the second person sentence, are you referring to "Starting a spoo ranch is relatively easy: one needs only to place two hundred spoo in the middle of the ranch and wait." ? If so, I have changed it thusly: "Starting a spoo ranch is relatively easy: the only requirement is to place two hundred spoo in the middle of the ranch and wait." Are there others?
As far as "Big style errors"... I would appreciate specific examples so that any error can be rectified. As it stands now, the article is consistent with the MoS: italicization of book titles, words as words, and the television series; quotations for episode names, etc. The only possible faux pas may be my JMS quote in the etymology section. The quote italicization may have been brought up in peer review, but the user refused/failed to/forgot to clarify her comments so that I could fix it. To be safe, I've changed it. Let me know of any specific errors so that I may fix it accordingly. Thanks for your time! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to constructions like this: "Spoo, as we now know, it first appeared in the first episode of the science fiction television series Babylon 5, when it was briefly mentioned by the Narn Ambassador, G'Kar[1]" - that sentence is screwy in several ways and for some reason makes me feel like it resembles the annoying wrong answers on standardized tests. Avoid use of "we", for instance, and make sure you have subject-verb agreement. Also, move footnotes to the end of the sentece, as they get quite jarring in the middle breaking up commas and such. Scott Ritchie 21:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Ahhhh, OK. I've ditched as we first know it. I've gone through and made sure the subject-verb agreement is OK. I've also moved all the footnotes to the end of all the sentences, and after punctuation as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Still some annoyances. EG: "The creatures are raised on ranches on planets with moist and chilly climates, not really because the creatures thrive in such environs, but because it produces the best level of paleness in the creatures' skin." - "not really" in explanatory prose is far too casual a tone for an encyclopedia article. I don't quite have the time to find every single error in the article and point it out to you, but in general the speech style of the article is far too casual and reads almost like a conversation in slang. Scott Ritchie 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Nor am I asking to have every single error pointed out. Though I disaggree with the characterization that it is written as a "conversation in slang," I'm going to try to tweak the prose a bit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe (I hope) I have illiminated the "annoyances", (adverbs=bad, right?). Let me know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, here are the differences between the version to which you were referring and the article now, encompassing edits by Tony and me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Barely encyclopedic sci-fi minutiae. Please focus on improving and FAC:ing the main article Babylon 5 instead of these whimsical cruft projects. / Peter Isotalo 09:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Are there more than "deserving" articles? Certainly there are subjects of greater importance running the gammot from science to politics to history and everything in between. Personally, I'd be absolutely elated to see B5 and JMS FAs - but I've run into the problem that I know so much about these subjects that I never know where to start. Yeah, Spoo is whimsical, but it's not like there is no precedent for this. Ultimately, every subject deserving an article is deserving a featured article, no? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
This is not a policy discussion nor an objection, so there's no need to point out precedents. It's an attempt to make people concentrate on articles that actually matter even to those who aren't die-hard fans or perhaps don't even like sci-fi to begin with. This is a good example of an article that is'nt particularly helpful when you don't possess prior knowledge of the subject. / Peter Isotalo 10:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
This is not an "attempt" at anything. I wrote the article, felt it fit the criteria, and nominated it. And I vehemently disaggree with your assertion that prior knowledge is needed to understand the article - its text and language are clear enough so that anyone may read and understand what is going on. Everything that needs explaining is taken care of in the text, and there are numerous pipe links to aid those who wish to explore facets of the Babylon 5 story further. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm making the attempt, not you. It's a reference to my comment, not the article. As for prior knowledge, you're not in any way contradicting me. If the first thing a user without prior knowledge of the series has to is to click a link, then it's pretty obvious that Babylon 5 is the priority article. / Peter Isotalo 06:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony's concerns:

Stongly oppose—Superficial and poorly written. Tony 15:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As to "poorly written," can you elaborate? Are you referring to possible technical flaws which may have been overlooked, errors in syntax, grammar, spelling? And how is it superficial? Is this in reference the nature of the subject, or is it (somehow) not comprehensive enough? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not, unless Tony1 can tell us why. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested enough in the topic to work on it; here are a few examples of poor writing at the opening. Long snake that needs breaking up: 'The show's creator and executive producer, J. Michael Straczynski, who also wrote the episode in question (as well as most of the series), was soon deluged by questions from fans from the various online message boards on which he frequently participated (such as GEnie, CompuServe, and USENET).' Overall, the number of parenthetical phrases makes the article hard to read.

"J. Michael Straczynski, the show's creator, executive producer, and writer of the episode in question, was soon deluged by questions from fans from the various online message boards on which he frequently participated."
I also cut back on the parentheticals throughout the text.

Opening sentence, 'fictional Babylon 5 universe'—tell us what it is: TV, film, novel?

Added to the intro.

Commas missing, e.g., 'Spoo as we now know it first appeared ...'

Fixed.

'among' better than 'amongst'.

Fixed.

'Derived from the alien worm-like creatures of the same name, spoo is generally considered'—What, it comes out of their bodies?

Derived -> Made.

Get rid of 'generally'.

Though the generally is actually part of the canon per the JMS post referenced, I have removed it.

'... spoo has taken on various meanings outside of the Babylon 5 universe and fan community as a neologism, from day trading jargon to computer programming.' The status of the last phrase is unclear (you can work it out, I guess, but readers shouldn't have to backtrack and ponder over the text. 'outside OF'—get rid of the redundant 'of'.

I've ditched the superfluous of. I'm not entirely sure how to clarify the sentence. There's a term for what may have happened with spoo. I think its called divergent etymology or some such, but for the life of me I cannot find the exact term. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole text needs thorough editing. But beyond that, the topic is inconsequential compared with 'the best that Wikipedia has to offer'. If it had been written in a cleverly humorous way, maybe; but there's nothing special about it. Wikipedians want to display their FAs with pride. Tony 03:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

-

Your efforts at improving the article are appreciated, but in answer to your question, yes, there are still many improvements required before the prose is of FA standard. Everywhere I look, there are things like: 'exorbitantly ridiculous volatility' (this is meant to be written in an authoritative register; this phrase is inappropriate unless, for example, it's trying to be cleverly humorous, which it's not);

It is meant to be "cleverly humorous." That you do not find it so does not deligitamize it as at least two others here seem to think it is humorous.

'two hundred spoo'—now we suddenly learn that it's a discreet thing as well as a substance; this should be made clear earlier, and by the way, please use numerals for 10 and above;

From the intro: "Although it is a universally loved foodstuff that is an actively traded commodity, the creature itself is regarded with contempt by the races that consume it." (Emphasis added) From the section called "The Creatures" (emphasis added), the first sentence starts "Spoo, the creature" (emphasis added). Based on that, I don't know how one can "suddenly learn that it is a discrete thing as well as a substance."
Re: numerals, "two hundred" -> "200"

'Unlike other products, not only is the product itself'—can you avoid the repetition so close after?

the product itself -> spoo

Why is 'very' italicised?

Hmm. Fixed.

Can we have a metric equivalent for non-US readers?

Ummm... a metric equivalent... of what, exactly? The only thing that goes into spoo units is "It is never explicitly stated what the price of spoo is and what unit of measurement is used in its trading."

'like the flavor (whatever that is), but will not openly admit to such,'—the parenthetical phrase is unclear in status and meaning; 'such' is a problem.

Yes, that is unclear. Fixed: "'like the flavor, but will not openly admit to it."

'cannot block the sheer volume (and volume) of sighs'—hello?

Volume as in quantity and volume as in loudness, which is clarified through the pipelinks. Another cleverly humorous passage. I will change it to "sheer quantity and loudness," if it presents a huge problem.
Scratch that. I have fixed it. Now, simply, cannot block the sheer volume of sighs. -JOG 9/15

'to to'—fresh eyes needed to pick out slips like tat.

Fixed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

These are only examples; you really need to find someone who's good at cleaning up text. It's a relatively superficial topic for featured article, and thus needs to compesate by being well written. I'd love a bit of clever humour in this article, if it can be achieved smoothly. (It would have to be done wryly, and bring a smile to the reader's face, but here I'm probably asking for something that I probably couldn't do myself, I realise.) Life's a spoo sandwich, eh. Tony 04:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

-

It's considerably improved, but I've just gone through the first few paragraphs, down to Kill 'em, and made about a dozen alterations. The pictures could do with some brightening, but that's less important. Tony 00:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC) PS Jeffey, when you write 'There are no spelling nor grammar mistakes in the article ...', I think you mean 'There are no spelling OR grammaTICAL mistakes in the article'.

Re:"Grammar": Heh, yeah, thanks. More evidence that I ain't the best writer in the world! ;) -JOG 9/14
Tony, you said it wasn't very important, but I've gone ahead and made the lead images brighter and considerably clearer. Comparing the various versions, they were murky before (something I didn't know how to fix until today). Now it makes the whole article look better. As usual, excellent suggestion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The top pic was still murky—have a look now, and either remove the new image or complete the info and copyright stuff on the image page.
Copy-left info added to your upload; I've also fixed the tags on the second and third images from {{screenshot}} to {{film-screenshot}} (I just noticed the old tag was obsolete)
Can you delink the red links?
I've delinked two of the red links (Zappa), leaving just one (Babylon Park), as I may still create an article for it once this is complete.
Dude, how can you misspell 'misspelt'? You did.
(I'd probably misspell my name if it wasn't at the top of the screen...)
It's better than it was, but I still don't think it's crash hot; in view of the persistence, hard work, and bona fides of the author, I'll reluctantly change my vote to neutral. Next time, if there is a next time, please dish up something that's polished before it gets onto this list. Tony 00:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Like I said on your talk page, it's all about the Peer Review. Thanks for your work on Spoo. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Query: Your objection was written, referring to Tony's initial objection (which was clarified and answered after your objection), and Scott's objection, which I have answered (though I'm still awaiting a reply). Do to the unspecific nature of the objections you pointed to at the time of your objection, as it stands your objection is not actionable. Do you have any specific actionable objections to the article, as it stands now? Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, support. I was referring to the inproper grammar and styling, but it seems to be fixed. It's a fun read! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I have no problems with the idea of a featured article on this topic, but there are a couple problems. It needs a longer lead, I think -- two paragraphs would be good. The Spam picture needs to be either explained or removed (one could photoshop the word spoo onto pretty much anything; I guess I understand the point of using spam -- because spoo is like a science-fiction version of spam, I guess -- but not everyone will get that). Tuf-Kat 05:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've got a pretty thorough justification and explination on the image's page, however, in hindsight the image should have a more direct connection, and it has been appropriately excised.
The lead has been beefed up a bit and split up. Not significantly longer, but it does contain more info going into the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks much better! support Tuf-Kat 04:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spoopport! — JIP | Talk 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Page is brief for an FA. Most of its references are to Usenet and blog posts, so the same as with GNAA applies - there's a distinct lack of reliable sources. Still isn't well written - and I'm damned sick of people practically asking the objectors to fix the objections for them in this area. For one, there are basic spelling and grammar errors still in the article. Ambi 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
1) Length is not an issue for FA's. As noted, it is longer than more than a few FA's.
2) Two USENET posts and two Compuserve posts are referenced - these posts were by the creator of B5 and Spoo, and are entirely relevant. Two other USENET posts go towards usage and the etymological history of the word. Also referenced are six websites, two books, and six episodes of B5. And there are no references to any "blog posts." Most of the content on the creature / food is from the show and one of the canon posts. The comparison to GNAA is painfully innapropriate - while GNAA may not actually exist as stated, spoo actually exists within the television series just as reported (just like Daleks exist in Dr. Who or Felix the Cat exists in cartoons - both FA, by the way.) I'm sorry, but all the references are reliable.
3) There are no spelling nor grammar mistakes in the article as it now stands. I don't see how this objection is actionable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Length is most certainly a reason to object to FA status, particularly when it is as short as this. Remember, they're supposed to be our best work - and this is way too short to be so. You state that there's shorter FAs in existence - I'd like to see proof of this, and I'd be tempted to put any such FA on WP:FARC instantly.
Look at my intro here - AEJ Collins (recently-ish promoted, recently main page'd) is the first thing I mention in reference to length. Spoo's longer than Battle of Aljubarrota, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (survived FARC), England expects that every man will do his duty, Franklin B. Gowen, John Day (printer)... and of comparable length to many more. Length is not an issue, comprehensivity is, and Spoo is decidedly comprehensive, whether or not you believe that the legit references are legit.
Secondly, I stand by the objection about the quality of the references, and thirdly, I strongly suggest you run the article through a spellchecker (as I just did) before calling my objection unactionable, else you look foolish. Ambi 13:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
For the nth time, I have run this through the spell checker in Word - here is what it caught:
-Spoo - this is painfully obvious
-Straczynski, Zappa, and Capp - proper names
-G'Kar, Londo, Skeletor, Mac and Bo - Characters' proper names
-Fandom - See here
-wanna, em and Jello - Both from direct quotes which I will not modify to preserve their accuracy, Jello also being a proper brand name
-Narn, Centauri, Technomage, and Pak'ma'ra - Fictional races from B5
-Boxtree - Proper name of British publishing firm
-Spoohunter - title
-Blogger - one who maintains a 'blog - occurs 45 times in Blog
-Syndicomm Python Offline Orchestrator - that's what they want to call it
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I liked it on Peer Review and the constructive criticism that it has received here has made it even better. Well done, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and thanks to everyone else. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It mentions day trading jargon in the intro, but never explains that aspect. Fieari 18:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "Real-world Etymology of the Name ... Stock and bond day traders have begun to use spoo in refererence to S&P 500 futures" (something needs to be done about the non-standard capitalisation of headings, though). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Note: ALoan has fixed the headdings. (Thanks). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • [Comment] Uh, Wario is not 'crufty'. Cruft is not synonymous with video game content, cruft is excessive information for a game or a movie or a book or whatever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Calling either page crufty was by no means intended as an isult. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I never said as such. But cruft is not synonymous with a fictional event/character/area/item/etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - A great article on an obscure topic. Comprehensiveness , not size, is the correct FA criteria to cite. As far as I can tell, this article is comprehensive, so it's small size is not an issue. Size really only comes into play when there isn't enough to write about a topic that it would be better dealt with as part of a larger article, or at the other end of the spectrum when reading time is adversely impacted. --mav 02:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks nice. An enjoyable read, and interesting. --Matt Yeager 06:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems comprehensive and well referenced. Besides, having a FA on fictional food is... well, it's Wiki, I guess :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoo Opening

I altered the Spoo article slightly. Look at my edit and revert if necessary. I don't like editing articles when they are in FAC but I thought the sentence sounded (although technically it wasn't) like a run-on sentence. I broke it up. Whatever you decide to do with the edit, I support the FA nomination. --maclean25 04:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to Spoo! I've gone through dozens of different versions of the opening, and to keep up with FA standards the version I've gone with has a more prose-y flow. I'm reverting it for now while I mull over other possibilities in lieu of your change. Thanks so much! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

In response to:
First, let me just say, (as ALoan noted), the article is so much better, thanks to you and Scott's criticism. Ideally, all the issues that I was oblivious to should have been taken care of in Peer Review, but as has been noted elsewhere on FAC, there is a decided lack of editors on PR that can assist an article's growth, let alone actual professionals such as yourself. Your two detailed critiques to which I have replied in detail have been especially instrumental in the article's development at this late stage.
To say the least, I am not the best writer in the world, but in true wiki fassion the article has been improved considerably thanks to quite a few users, especially yourself, for which I am endlessly greatful. I truly believe the article, as it now stands, is worthy of FA-hood. No matter whether or not you support it, I extend my genuine thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Tony wrote:

Jeffrey, in that case, I'm wondering why you didn't enlist editorial support before nominating it. Sorry, but I could spend 50 hours a week editing FA candidates, which won't help to pay my rent. I think people nominate their articles at too early a stage. The rest of the article still needs a final edit, but I'm not doing it. Tony 01:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, I did. Before I put it on FAC, I had (what I thought was) a pretty extensive peer review. I invited several editors familiar with Babylon 5 to review the article and comment on PR. If you look at the PR, there were comments, just not to the extent that you brought up. Before I even thought of taking it to FAC I asked, in bold letters, if there was anything that could inhibit an effective FAC, with only one reply (and she didn't follow up). That is simply further evidence of the lack of real attention paid to peer review by editors willing to take the time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem. I don't have time to do peer reviews as well. But maybe I should go there and flick through the first para of each, and make general 'get it edited' statements. Trouble is, most authors won't believe you until you list specific examples. Tony 04:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Glad to see your pet project got featured. It's nice to see some totally random thing (that happens to be really, really high-quality) get featured for once. Matt Yeager 05:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, congrats too, but keep refining it, eh? Tony 06:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll try! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

spoo and schmoo

Speaking as somebody who read Li'l Abner but never saw Babylon 5, my first thought is that the latter was likely influenced by the former, which should be in the spoo article - what say you? - DavidWBrooks 10:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This was discussed in peer review a while ago and the result was to put it into the article; it is in the related articles section below the references. The reason there is not a more definitive connection is that there is zero evidence to support any connection in the first place, aside from the base similarities in name and color. J. Michael Straczynski, creator, executive producer, and writer of almost all of Babylon 5, and the creator of Spoo, has always been very open and direct about his influences. Since the late 80's, he has been interacting extensively with his fans and science fiction fandom in general, online, so much so that fans have archived over 17000 of his messages in searchable databases. Not once has he ever mentioned Scmoo, L'il Abner, or Al Capp, and the reference seems outside his previously acknowledged frame of reference in his works, which is usually ascribed to religions and mythology of all sorts, and classic science fiction and fantasy. If JMS were to ever draw a direct line between the two, I'd happily put that in, but as it is, anything more would be frank supposition. Thanks for checking out Spoo! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dan Rice

This article has seen serious improvement. If you'd care to reconsider your nomination, I think we can safely put this one to rest. Friday (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Mozart FARC

Jeffrey—Pleased to see that the Mozart article is headed for the chopper. My main complaint is the inadequate treatment of his musical style. But there are other matters, too. I've corrected your comment at the top of the page—best to be as mistake-free as possible to retain our authority in what will inevitably be a bun-fight.

Tony 09:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Administrator intervention

You listed a user "150.203.236" on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you were intending to list an IP address, that particular entry does not fit the correct pattern. Could you fix it?  Denelson83  06:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. When you post to WP:AIV, make sure you use the {{vandal}} template. Also, 150.203.236 doesn't seem to have any edits. Could you please check the IP address and post it again? Thanks, --Blackcap | talk 06:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • O.K. Looks like you're set. Take care, --Blackcap | talk 06:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My Big Ole RfA

This is a copy of my RfA, boyeeeeee!

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Final (31/0/0) ended 07:16 November 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk • contribs) – Ahoy fair editors! This is a self-nomination. I came to The Project a year ago next month, registered last December, but only started actively editing in April. Until this summer, I spent most of my time reading the wiki, following link after link, and aquainting myself with how it all works. By August I became a real Wiki-addict, editing stuff at random as I came to it (most of my edits are since August). I like to spend time at Special:Newpages helping articles off on the right foot (wikifying, cleaning up, stubbifying), or tagging for speedy/AfD where needed (which, I have discovered, is alot), and I recently got hooked on RC patrol. I am the creator, author, and maintainer of the Wikipedia:Former featured articles project page, and I close the votes on WP:FARC. The world would not run without the Janitors, and I'd relish the opportunity to be able to more effectively help things more behind-the-scenes. Thank you all for your consideration. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As noted, this is a self-nomination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support - looks like just the sort of Admin we need :). Plus, I always like people who use the word "Aforementioned". --Celestianpower háblame 08:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. What would the world be without janitors? And I always like the word ahoy. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Spoopport! — JIP | Talk 09:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Looks good. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support Fine editor in my experience. Marskell 10:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support A little bit of "vandal-crushing" is fine; "process-crushing" would not be, but I'm happy with nominee's response and record. Xoloz 12:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Good Editor --JAranda | watz sup 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support but why would you want to put vandals heads on fish? CambridgeBayWeather 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Because nothing says "stay away" like rotting mackeral. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  10. Orane (t) (c) (@) 15:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, user will make a good admin. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. I don't really know this editor, but he seems trustworthy, and letting him delete speedies instead of tagging them will make my life easier. -R. fiend 17:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, finally someone I feel as though is ready. Private Butcher 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Friday (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. El_C 04:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. (see comments below.) --Jacqui ★ 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, 250%. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 05:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support I notice that this editor does a fine job with Recent changes patrol and I think giving him admin powers would be a huge plus for wikipedia. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 06:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support seems sound. Dlyons493 Talk 19:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support vandal-whackers. I even had to revert vandalism on this RFA (check the history), which is a good sign. Titoxd(?!?) 22:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support, takes vandalism seriously. Jkelly 02:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 07:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support!  BD2412 talk 07:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Huge amount of anti-vandalism work Banana04131 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support and thanks for all the fish. Silensor 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support the aforementioned fine editor. Alf melmac 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support Good anti-vandalism work, tools would be helpful in that. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. -- DS1953 talk 23:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Shazaam! Adminify! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  • Neutral, leaning Oppose until my new question below is answered. Xoloz 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Answered below. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Comments

  • My modest count can be found here. Analyze or ignore at will. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned that his response to this and this bit of vandalism was this, rather than reverting. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, ok, yes I should have reverted that completely. As I read it, it just seemed like page discussion on the page. I looked at the previous version but did not go deeply enough. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
You do acknowledge, though, that this a place for a NPOV subsection for "criticisms" in many prominent theories? Xoloz 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes indeed, however it is never a given, and what I removed (instead of reverted, which I should have done) was talking about the page on the page, rather than in talk. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
New Question posted. Xoloz 11:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Answered below. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:JeffreyOGustafson-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 13:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Use of edit summaries is 69%, 99.6% over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is ~5.5 per day, 17.7 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 13:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I was actually looking forward to Durin's chart, which reaffirms what I said about my level of participation above. Editcountitis aside, the 30-day total would likely be considerably higher if not for a wikibreak I took in the middle of this month (near non-activity over two weeks from October 6th through the 19th with essentially zero activity the 8th-16th see gaps towards the bottom of this contributions log). Excellentness from Durin, as usual. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't vote on a lot of AfDs because I don't know the users being nominated and I feel there's not enough information being given for me to make a good decision without investing hours and hours of time poring through edit histories -- and I'd rather be working on articles. Though I haven't worked closely with you, I feel that I have sufficient information to be confident of your abilities. (I did poke around a bit in your edit history, too.) And I must say, I am always impressed with a person who will cheerfully admit that he or she has made mistakes; shows an attitude with nothing to hide, which is perfect for a position in which a person's actions will undergo scrutiny. --Jacqui ★ 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your kind words and for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Until recently, I'd never thought that I'd use the much-heralded rollback tool, but then I got hooked to RC patrol and have discovered what a help that would be. I'd likely spend alot of time closing AfDs, and speedying deserving candidates on New Pages patrol.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm rather fond of the previously aforementioned Wikipedia:Former featured articles (a lovely behind-the-scenes resource), but the thing I am most proud of is Spoo. An article about a fictional food/creature from Babylon 5 that was thrice-deleted and copyvio when I got to it, I wrote from scratch and took all the way to Featured status (!) this September.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I don't let myself get stressed out, not because it isn't worth it, but because stress (more than anything) drives people away from The Project. Relatively recently, I came accross Carlos Mencia which was copyvio, so I wrote a half-decent page. Within days it became a magnet for POV-pushers and vandals, so its been a bit of a battle. Although those trying to push one agenda or other have been largely anonymous, I'd like to think that I've drawn the main players out to deal with it on the talk page and have managed to guide the page to neutrality.
4. Your user page expresses support for the views of User:RadicalBender. Could you please explain in what ways, and to what degree, you sympathize with him? Possibly separately, what is your view on administrative use of WP:IAR as a justification for action?
A. To quote RadicalBender, "we MUST stop accomodating and enabling trolls through process," and "Vandals should be shot on sight and their heads should be placed on pikes as a warning to others," figuratively speaking, of course. Sometimes (I'm sorry, I do not have specifics here, just generalizations), there is too much tolerance for vandals, with users leaving multiple messages to clearly malignant non-users before doing anything while said vandal plugs away ignoring all threats. This isn't for all vandals: there are degrees of severity that need to be judged. Sometimes, users need to be guided in the right direction, yes; others, one warning is enough, then action should be taken. It's a judgement thing, and admins should use their judgement.
As for IAR, like I said, admins should use their judgement, one that hopefully reflects the spirit of the rules, and they must be willing to defend their actions. They obviously should never take action where there is a defined process for something, but then again this can be changed, too, for instance on AfD. It is about common sense, as noted in IAR. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Happy -- Supporting now

Vandal crushing is fine by me! :) Something about RadicalBender's page had visions of prematurely- closed RfA's dancing in my head. But process for vandals -- I wouldn't mind in the least if editing were restricted to registered users. Kill away. User opinions deserve respect, not puppets. :) Xoloz 12:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Vegan edit

Not a problem! But it's something to keep an eye out for once you're an admin. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Good thinking

Redirecting Company song - didn't even occur to me. Smart man :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Two questions and a request

1. Do you have an automated tool that gives you the ability to add or delete things from many articles at the same time? If so, would you be interested in sharing it?

I use the Firefox browser from Mozilla. It's open-source and copyleft, completely free, and the best browser in existance. More to the point, it has a feature called tabbed browsing, allowing a user to have many different pages open in a single window. I use that function alot, especially on Recent Changes and New Pages patrol.

2. What information do I need to supply you with to make you comfortable with the content of the articles I write, so that I may avoid future instances of your deleting significant portions of my work? Please see articles on the Governors of Delaware.

You belittle your own truly amazing work here by saying a single image constitutes a "significant portion." I wish I had the knowledge and writing ability for my home state that you possess in reference to your home state and those who have guided its development.

3. I would be grateful if you could take the time to read my user page, as I have yours, to try and understand my intentions. As I state on it, feedback is appreciated. I recognize my work is not perfect, and am simply experimenting to find ways to produce a better product. stilltim 21:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And please continue to expirement, by all means.
But now, the reasoning behind my edits. First, to clarify things for anyone else wondering, I removed the chicken shown at right from thirty-five (35) pages mainly dealing with notable Delaware politicians and statesman. In each of those pages, the image at left was located at the beginning of the main section after the table of contents, without fail.
When I first saw this image on one of the pages, I was entirely perplexed by its presence. Initially, I assumed it was a vandal trying to make some sort of statement or to just plain vandalize the page. Digging into the history, however, I saw that the page had not been vandalized, and in fact had largely been written by two individuals, yourself and one other editor. Clicking on the image revealed that it was the state bird of Delaware, and that it was on many similar pages. I immidiately understood that someone was trying to bring all Delaware articles together by introducing the theme of the state bird. However, there are specific and significant problems with including it on the pages:
  • As is (just the bird), to the uninitiated (or in other words, most of the readers of the page) it is frankly confusing. One shouldn't have to click on multiple things to gather the significance of an edit.
  • So lets say you thumbnail the image and explain what it is. Even then, it is still confusing. One would be wondering, for instance, why the state bird is on Joe Biden's page: did he choose it? Did he cast a pivotol vote in its selection? etc. The answer is, naturally, no, so to rectify the situation you'd need to explain even further: "This is the state bird of Delaware and it's on Delaware related pages." Then it just gets in the way and distracts from the article.
  • Including an image on any article that does not somehow have something directly to do with the image is not encyclopedic in the traditional or wiki sense. Indeed, your strategic inclusion of the flag, seal, shield etc. of Delaware (and occasionally other states) through all of your Delaware bios are also thoroughly confusing - what purpose do they serve?
I understand what you are trying to do, and it is logical for a website, but not an encyclopedia. What you can do is create a Wikiproject with Delaware as the focus, and use the bird as the symbol. Then the bird will be on all project related talk pages, which is perfectly acceptable.
However, upon further inspection of the issue as I was removing the images, I noticed that the copyright info wasn't in line with what is acceptable for Wikipedia. The image page specifically states the website from which the image came - this is good. The problem is, the image is copyrighted to somebody - if its not the webpage's owner, than to whomever took the picture, and inclusion of the whole image does not constitute fair use under any circumstances. As a result, it is not allowed on wikipedia at all (until such time that the original owner releases it to the public domain/the GDFL/Creative Commons, or current copyleft status can be definitively confirmed). And even then, it would only be appropriate on articles about the animal, the state, and state birds in general.
I hope you see what I was trying to do here, both in terms of cutting down on potential confusion, staying in line with encyclopedic standards, and following the new stricter rules of image use laid down by Jimbo, and by no means did I intend harm to "your work" (though you should already know by now that the nature of the Project means that someone, somewhere, will eventually edit the pages you have created).
A suggestion I have for you that will greatly improve your articles is removing all those little, unexplained images (the flags and shields and seals) - they will make your articles easier to read, and bring them in line with the rest of Wikipedia.
I cannot stress enough the importance of your presence on the Project, and I hope this does not discourage you in any way. I hope you have a good night, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

FARC

see Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen and please respond there. --Jiang 11:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

and again. let's keep this discussion in one place. --Jiang 11:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Yes, Amy Poehler is fairly attractive as you noted. But that might just be your Red Sox bias slipping in. Better luck next year, eh? Gotta keep Theo around though. And Mueller.

It was a rough season, but I'm all for Chicago winning (86 years for the sins of 8 people is enough time).

There's my POV right there. And good luck on your RfA. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Much thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

250%

Congratulations on your 2,000th edit! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations on your 2,000th edit! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure I have the power to vote up to 300%. 300% would be reserved for someone Jimbo like, or Jimbo's son... 250 is a fair amount, I see you around so much I thought you were one by now, I mean cmon everyone you see alot is one, aren't they? ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. BTW, alert me if you are ever up for Bureaucrat again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NBS AfD

Below is a copy of an AfD on a page I wrote, Narn Bat Squad.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

nn internet meme with a whopping 155 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • 155? Try 753 online and more than 3500 on USENET. The actual number is considerably higher due to non-archived message systems such as GEnie and CompuServe where usage was heavy. Additionally, nowadays "NBS" is used as frequently as the full name, however google doesn't assist much because of the rather common nature of the initials. Finally, most references to the NBS in fandom don't explicitly say "NBS" or "Narn Bat Squad" - but contain the elements of the NBS, namely a virtual beating, looking over the shoulder, etc., written after a bad joke. It is a significant element of Babylon 5 fandom, and has made in-roads to all aspects of sci-fi fandom over the last 11 years. Strong Keep --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Like I said, 155 unique hits. Go to the last page of your search and you'll see that now it's down to 154. The count you give is for multiple occurrences on the same site. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I almost never use the dreaded term "fancruft" but I certainly think it applies here. Def of a joke term made up by online fans of a sci-fi show. Apparently never even used on the show itself. This is sub-sub-sub-trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
More accurately created by the creator of the show. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
That isn't what the article seems to say. Direct quote: "Fans immediately latched on to the concept, and combining it with past posts by Straczynski, dubbed group of Narns the Narn Bat Squad, or NBS." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the way the NBS operates, as a form of punishment for bad jokes, is a result of Straczynski's post. The NBS name was something assigned by the fans (and immediately wholehearedly accepted and used online by Straczynski); the NBS itself is Straczynski's. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's fancruft, but it's the notable kind because it was coined by the show's creator, and because it's seeped out of the fanbase into unrelated communities online, and that makes it the sort of thing that someone might look up the origins of. — mendel ☎ 04:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per mendel. If someone who knows where this crops up, in any major way outside the B5 fan community, and adds a paragraph or section on it, it would probably help the article's chances. Saberwyn 05:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you follow the google groups link above you see an immediate diversity of groups and languages where the reference is currently used (which, once again, does not include the wide use of the NBS acronym [or many, many instances where the NBS is referenced in practice but not in name]). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jeffrey O. Gustafson's comments.Indium 09:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Internet memes are inherently non-notable, and forum/message board/Usenet memes infinitely more so. flowersofnight 20:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 3500 Usenet hits only marginally more notable than 3500 hits from the same online message board's website. If we had an article on Babylon 5 fandom, this could redirect there, but we don't. -Sean Curtin 04:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, that is just what says "Narn Bat Squad" - more say NBS, and most (nowadays) reference it without explicitly saying the name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but would prefer to see it in an article on Babylon 5 fandom. If it had to be a fork off that article, so be it. --maclean25 05:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, makes no claim of existing much beyond one minor online forum. Andrew Levine 07:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This statement makes no sense. From the article: "Beginning on the Babylon 5 newsgroups and spreading to other science fiction newsgroups and internet forums..." And as clearly I pointed out above, just follow the google groups link to see the diversity of groups (and languages) that the NBS appear in, in name (with even more in practice). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting. - EurekaLott 19:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedies and long summaries

Hmm...I'm sure you know what is on my mind :-) --HappyCamper 13:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no problem :-) --HappyCamper 13:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

2K

Well, then I'll congratulate you again, this time in advance! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive0, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA User:Nichalp/sg 05:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratluations. Have a pike (or any sort of fish you want). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats!!! Good job on becoming an admin! If all goes well, I'll be joining you any day. See you 'round AfD. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) Continuing support, Jacqui ★ 14:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the big deal? It's only a mop! Oh well, congrats. :-D BD2412 T 00:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Allen Wood

Check out Duane Jackson and Luna Studios Inc and User 207.69.137.14. You might want to mention the releationship on the AfD pages. By the way, I blocked the user for repeated vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

User page

Hi, your user page was just blanked and messaged - see this diff. Alf melmac 11:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job removing vandalism + suggestion

I noticed that you revert vandalism a bit. You should join the counter vandalism unit There is an irc channel on freenode.net call wikipedia-en-vandalism. It has cool_cats bot which picks up vandalism. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 12:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

so are you going to join? --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 12:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

While I have a keen interest in fighting vandalism, I have no interest in joining the CVU. Thanks for the offer. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Making AfDs easier

I recently created a script that helps voting on AFDs, the afd helper. It's recently been extended to make the nomination process much quicker too, but this hasn't been tested yet. It looked like you might find it handy. Any feedback would be appreciated. jnothman talk 14:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that the feature is particularly useful if you're a tabbed browser user. Or maybe that's just my bias for tabbed browsing anyway (I've been doing it for 5 years in Opera).
But that's beside the point: where the helper makes it easier is that it avoids typing things that you have to type on every AFD. If I'm going through the AFD log and want to vote "Delete per nom" (after having reviewed the article, etc), all I need to do now is click a little vote button beside the list of votes, type "d<enter>pn<enter><enter>" and my vote will be posted in a couple of seconds. If I want to nominate an article for AFD now, I similarly (if the system works) just click a link on the left hand side of my screen, check the date is correct, type the reason for the nomination and hit enter, and the three steps are done for me.
No technicalities, then. To install the script, edit your monobook.js and paste the following:
/**** afd helper ****/
document.write('<script type="text/javascript"' +
  'src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jnothman/afd_helper/' +
  'script.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

function Main()
{
 afd_helper();
 // You may include here other "extensions"
}
window.onload = Main;

/* This is to keep track of who is using this extension: [[User:Jnothman/afd_helper/script.js]] */
Save, and you should be done. Then refresh the AFD log page to see vote buttons next to each entry. I hope you have a go, because I think this'll make it easier even for those not technically-inclined. jnothman talk 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what moonbook is? -- that is why I gave you a link. But since I'm nice I'll tell you what it is too =P Monobook is actually the default skin for Wikipedia. But so that users can have more control over display and can add neat tools to aid navigating and editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia's skins load a javascript file which the user can edit, giving a lot more power to the user to customise their Wikipedia experience. This file, at least for the Monobook skin is found at User:USER_NAME/monobook.js, in your case at User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/monobook.js. I hope that was a little helpfull. jnothman talk 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedies

Hi there. A recent speedy of yours, Riot Siren has been listed at WP:DRV. Please note that A7 does not apply to bands, since all the bands speedies were rejected. If the article were about a person in the band, that would be different. -Splashtalk 15:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that a number of your other speedy-A7's were impropper. I'm trying not to bite, but please be careful? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
In the attempt to proactively add levity into a situation that hopefully will not devolve into bad things (it shouldn't! No hard feelings, I swear! Hey, out of 3 times I brought you up for DR, I totally bobbled at least 1 of them) I award you this barnstar for deletion above and beyond the call of duty! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Ahoy! It's ok to bite in this case as I may have gotten a bit over-eager with the new buttons - I'll be the first to admit my mistakes, and in order to see them someone needs to bring it up, so thanks, actually. The Barnyard thing was because some anon had been adding dozens of articles with the title "(2006 film)" at the end of it. I did a lot of moves and redirects to the proper titles (usually just the title, or just "(film)" at the end), and should have blanked and redirected Barnyard (2006 film) to the already extant Barnyard (film), but I screwed that up. Kelly McGee was G4, my reasoning was G4, I put A7 for some dumb reason. Riot Siren... well, now I know: if it is about one person that does not assert notability, speedy; if it is about more than one person that does not assert notability, AfD (and as always, when in doubt, AfD, anyway). Thanks for your help, and the barnstar! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I, Nlu, award you with the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your tireless service in ridding Wikipedia of vandalism. --Nlu 23:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Enlarge
I, Nlu, award you with the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your tireless service in ridding Wikipedia of vandalism. --Nlu 23:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming an admin, and feel free to drop by if you need anything. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Preservation Issues

Thanks for dealing with Preservation Issues--your solution is sensible. No one knew what to do with that thing, which is why it sat there so long after it should have been closed. Chick Bowen 00:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please look at this RfA

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Unsigned spam by User:Zeq

Sasiska

When deleting articles, please delete talk pages as well, unless they contain notable discussions that could be helpful in the future, e.g., during possible article recreation. mikka (t) 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For your side-splitting one-liner on User_talk:Daniel Brandt, I hereby award you the Good Humor Barnstar! --Linuxbeak - Talk 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Enlarge
For your side-splitting one-liner on User_talk:Daniel Brandt, I hereby award you the Good Humor Barnstar! --Linuxbeak - Talk 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuckfrance

I'm objecting to your use of IAR.

Ok, I'm not actually objecting to the deletion, just having a bit of a stir. I really did want to point out that there is a precedent if a nomination was very very clear for removing it early, so this isn't IAR.

I plugged on the IAR afterwards to cover immediate objections to the closing.

But what was the harm in letting it ride, anyway?

brenneman(t)(c) 21:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The AfD? Well, sometimes there are pages that are genuinely harmful to The Project, and that was one of them. (If concensus was not clear, of course, I would not have touched it). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's popped up on WP:DRV now... - brenneman(t)(c) 11:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Allen Wood

I just now got a chance to look at the situation that happened. Thanks for the message. JW definitely overreacted, which is too bad, since he looks like a talented person. While I definitely don't condone his behavior, I still think he was treated a little too curtly by the community in the beginning, which seems to be what provoked him. Nevertheless, you did what you had to do, and he's responsible for his actions. By the way, congratulations on your recent sysop appointment. Peace, HGB 23:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Chubak

I don't think AfD is necessary, the case is glaringly obvious. Vanity page, as well as OR. Dsol 20:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it. There was a removed speedy tag. Can you close out the AfD. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

To Jeffery

Sorry for not paying attention! Thanks!

Patay Gutom Gang

While I agree that Patay Gutom Gang, which you just deleted, should be a speedy candidate, I must nonetheless disagree with its deletion. The article was not patent nonsense as you claimed in your deletion summary, but rather a quite well-written article about an utterly non-notable group. (It may have been a hoax, but G1 specifically excludes those as well.) In fact, I was going to bring up the article at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion as an example of why A7 should be expanded to cover non-notable groups, which it currently doesn't. I feel that, under the current rules, this article needs to be given the usual AfD process before deletion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It is restored, as requested. AfD away. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

STUT

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STUT(Southern Taiwan University of Technology). -- RHaworth 00:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Eddie Guerrero

If I could make a suggestion in the article called Eddie Guerrero, there is a section under his death that says:

"An autopsy revealed that Eddie died in his sleep as a result of acute heart failure, caused by undiagnosed heart disease and strain put on his heart from overworking himself ....."

He did NOT die in his sleep. He died in the early morning hours of 7:30 a.m. while he was brushing his teeth. He died of a massive heart attack, but I guess thats the same as his heart failure. If you could please change the sentence about him dying in his sleep. --SWD316 01:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is unlocked and has scince been fixed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen

I saw that you had decided that the Sun Yat-sen FARC had reached consensus and removed the article as a Featured Article. I'm not sure that consensus was reached. In short, there were seven votes for removal and three votes to keep, along one other comment to improve. The catch, though, is that one of the removal votes was with the caveat to "improve or remove" and Deryck C. was working to improve the article. He addressed the copyright concerns and other issues. I do not believe that a FARC without consensus, and one in which the primary editor of the article is working to address the concerns, should be removed. I am also bothered that, as stated before, this FARC ignored the FARC guidelines about not nominating an article so soon after achieving FA status.--Alabamaboy 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I aggree that the FARC was too soon after promotion - see the specific FARC's talk page. I speedy de-listed it and tried to convince the nominator to hold off. I also asked for assistance from Raul, the FA director, but was ignored (either because he din not object to the FARC going forward, or he did not care). When other users expressed a desire for the FARC to go forward, there was little I could do.
As for the article being de-featured, I stand by my decision. I believe consensus was reached (although consensus is not always used with FAs). FAs must live up to a higher standard, and even a slight consensus is enough to warrant defeaturing, especially considering that it can take only one actionable objection to sink an FAC full of supports.
Deryck C. did address some of the concerns raised, notably the copyvio stuff, yes, but that was only a small part of the issue. Once Deryck feels the article is up to snuff, he should take it through the FAC process again (he can do it now if he wants). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As I told the original FARC nominator, I agreed that the article had issues and I'm glad it's being improved. I'm also fine with leaving the article as a removed FA. Maybe we can use this case as an opportunity to institute a few more guidelines for the FARC page. I mentioned two possible ones at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates. Any thoughts on this. BTW, while I did question is consensus was reached I do think you've been doing a great job on the FARC page. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm doing a classic rock survey and was wondering if you would like to contribute. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambtalk

Just a reminder that when something has been sent to AfD, the page still needs closing when you speedy it.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

D'oh - I was actively editing in, like, ten tabs when my computer conked out (it's a piece of shit that randomly shuts off on its own), and I couldn't quite remember all the stuff I was working on. Thanks for the fix. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted page

Can you please enlighten me to why you have deleted my page twice? Feel free to respond by email to rodgersjd@hotmail.com. A friend of mine, Marcus Walker, has a similar page which has been in existence for several weeks - yet mine is deleted on sight. Can you please reinstate my page?

I deleted your page for two reasons: Vanity and lack of notability. Wikipedia inclusion policy states that the subject of a biography be notable and that such info is verifiable. Your article was neither. Additionally, adding articles about oneself is frowned upon as pure vanity and bad taste. If you wish, you can create a user page with whatever info you like, however user pages are reserved for active users and if you just use it to put a a mirror of the deleted info, it too will be deleted. By the way, thanks for letting me know about the Marcus Walker page. That, too, has been deleted for the same reasons. Good day. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

In reference to this and this...

I get a new IP address every time that I log in. I created an account today because I've been editing now for a month, and in that time I've had 17 different IP addresses, and I think its confusing for people because they probably don't realise that all 17 are me. Then there's the fact that every so often, other people use the IP addresses that I use. After what is it 2,000 edits or something, I thought maybe I should make an account.

Accusing me of puppeting, though, is very rude, and I would like you to remove that. You can disregard my vote as Zordrac. But that other person I've never seen before. The reality is that those chat sites are notable, and are very much so. If you delete them, then there is a major gap in the history of the internet. I don't know if we've got a history of the internet up here, but if we did, it'd have to include stuff like that. Mind you, for some bizarre reason, Wikipedia has next to nothing about talkers full stop, and it seems like nobody is interested in what happened on the internet before Wikipedia came around.

I think that your whole behaviour on the Vfd, including making it 30 seconds after I wrote the page, has been appalling. I think that you should probably breathe a bit, rest, and get down off that soap box you are on. Assume good faith. Zordrac 20:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, lets analyze this a bit. "But that other person I've never seen before." You are likely referring to User:203.122.225.241. 203.122.225.241 wrote the page that you just slipped up and said you wrote! If you are referring to User:Piquan, I didn't say he was you, or knew you. In AfD discussions, illuminating a user's voting history, especially for low counts, is standard practice.
But lets go back to the first thing. 203.122.225.241 voted already. Then you come along (same person), and vote again under a different name (Zordrac). Yup, that is a sock puppet.
Also, illuminating someone's vote count is not a personal attack. Nor is putting something up for AfD a violation of Assume Good Faith. "Appaling behaviour"? If it means sticking to Wikipedia standards and practices, then I am guilty. Good day. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Concrete Cows

I've created a new article under Concrete Cows. This one is for real, not a repeat of whatever it was you had to delete earlier this week. (for info only, nothing you need to do, just pre-empting any kneejerk). --Concrete Cowboy 14:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Brijbrij Copyvio and J moss copyvio

heya ;] I was wondering what the source was for the pages J moss and Brijbrij that you had tagged as copyvio's... one of them the summary indicates (and I agree) that it's nonsense... should we tag it as {{nonsense}? --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 03:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Arthur W. Baron and Molecular Economics

Thanks for helping out with these AfD's; I had enough trouble keeping up with the vandalism and unsigned comments on the voting. Hoaxes ought to be Speedyable. Peyna 05:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Block on User:4.230.150.225

I unblocked, and reblocked for 24 hours. We should never block IPs indefinitely, particularly those IPs that are dynamic/dial-up. Ral315 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I use [1]. Use the IP tests...for example, the Reverse DNS Lookup. When you run this IP address through it, you see "dialup-4.230.150.225.Dial1.Houston1.Level3.net". When in doubt, don't block for more than a week. Don't worry about it; just be a little more careful in the future :) Ral315 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Is wikipedia anti-authoritarian

I've restored this article since "essay" is not a reason for speedy deletion. It was put up for Afd. Let's the Wikipedia community decide its fate. BTW, I voted "Delete" JoJan 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, should have labeled it "nonsense essay," then. Nlu speedied it, anyway. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Shout voice trump

I have just started working on an entry on shout voice trump. Having studied the Rapture doctrines and seminary theology, this doctrine is unique because it involves people instead of belief. This doctrine is actually a large group of people worldwide. I have been researching it and currently have added some of the basic reference links I was directed to.

Your comments about user page and talk page need clarified. It took me awhile to figure out how Wikipedia works. I finally signed up with a username that would match the article title thinking that was proper. Then I tried to create the page accidentally on the user and talk pages.

--- If an individual is not of seminary or theological background, this article may seem trite. However, within the large religious community this article is a vital resource for understanding this group of people. ---

Thank you for your considerations as I continue to expand on this group of individuals. You could say, that just as there are Methodists or Catholics, there are now a group of people who are Shout Voice Trump'ers for lack of an official title. I have had trouble finding clear resources and considered building a website but have now decided that the quality of Wikipedia would be the best choice for consolidating information for the research community.

WP:FARC

Hi - I've seen you ignoring the rules in respect of Roy Orbison on WP:FARC. While I can see why you did what you did, the reason for a delay is to allow contributors to attempt to bring the article up to featured standard again, and the early archiving prevents that possibility. Rather than stetting the position myself (since I am somewhat involved in the debate) please would you to reconsider. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Gallery Emerald Tree Boa

Hi, I would appreciate to know why the gallery about emerald tree boa was deleted, even though it only had one image. It is referenced from the emerald tree boa page and a placeholder for future images. Danleo 13:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the gallery on cats and other lists of images ? Danleo 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

How do I send edit a page that I own the copyright to? everytime I add an article it gets deleted because it came from my web page that I own the rights to.

auralwiz

Jgrutz

Thanks for blocking Jgrutz. That was all a bit strange. I couldn't quite work out what this person was trying to do. They were obviously putting in links to their own sites, but some of the behaviour was very odd. Anyway thanks! (The real jgritz!)- Jgritz 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion?

I wrote the Bombs and Beating Hearts article and it was deleted for being vain. I do not see how it was. If you think it is because lack of importance, then you should come to Salt Lake City, UT and see the enormous culture that we have a large part in helping to create. There are not many guerrilla bands in this world, and many people do find it notable that one band in a particular area started a chain reaction of creating more of them. If it is because my user name is the band's name and that automatically makes it vain then that is a lousy practice which should be retired. Should I write about us in our user page, write different things in the article, or get someone else to write the article at all? Bombsandbeatinghearts 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

why did you delete my article? you said it was nonsense. wiki says nonsense is "Nonsense is an utterance or written text in what appears to be a human language or other symbolic system, that does not in fact carry any identifiable meaning." My article carries many facts and identifiable meaning. Why would you decide it is not wiki worthy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddec (talk • contribs).

"0 records" and three shows. There are standards of inclusion at wikipedia which this fails completely and utterly. See WP:BAND and WP:WIN. You should also know that any further instances of adding vanity will result in a block from editing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would expounding on the article now not be allowed? If there was a problem and it could be fixed, why won't the ability to fix it be hindered? You still have not answered my first questions about you labeling the article nonsense. Just because my name is the same as one of the band members does not mean I am being vain. It could be a coincedence. I think that its protection now is irresponsible wiki etiquette. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddec (talk • contribs).

Please. No amount of "expounding" will fix an article on a subject so completely non-notable. Tagged as nonsense, should have been expanded A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[...] why is what you think notable not matter to the rest of the world? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddec (talk • contribs).

I know what expound means. I removed the def as cluttering. The matter is closed, all further comments on this artricle will be ignored. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean by nn bio? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsv (talk • contribs).

An article about non notable person or persons. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mai Neng Moua

She gets almost 700 google hits. I don't think it quite qualify as nn. Let's have a date on Afd? :) Renata3 04:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem - article restored, afd initiated. At 700, subject is notable enough, I think. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I have no opinion about her (I don't even know what is Hmong ;) ), I just know she does not qualify as a speedy nn. Renata3 18:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Salad

Ummmm...sorry, i guess. Amaas120 04:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete me entry?

Why did you delete my entry (ani-pock.net)?

Spam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WHAT?!

"Sorry, but it is not an encyclopedia on everybody - there are standards of inclusion which the subject fails miserably." That's BS! This is a legitimate entry for people who want to know more about Derek Perrone! The fact that you are deleting this entry is completely out of line. You're an administrator? You need to be banned! This is completely NOT fair! I agree this "is not an encyclopedia on everybody", but this is a legitimate entry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.133.142 (talk • contribs).

Then take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what, forget it! God forbid if someone makes a tool that is useful for finding information easily! It's a shame we live in a world where morons like you destroy the good in it. We might as well go back to using our paper-bounded encyclopedias', becuase idiots like you will just come in and delete pages they don't like. And don't even think of saying I'm unjustified when I say your an idiot. Just take one look at your stupid user page. I think it's completely unfair of you to say what should stay and what should go. You know that's what you do. You write that you follow the offical rules for content, but I know better. There was nothing in that entry that didn't fall under those rules, and furthermore, it was a completely legitimate entry. Thus, you are an idiot, and in the morning I will motion to the wikipedia foundation that you be banned for these outrageous actions! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.133.142 (talk • contribs).

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and all Wikipedia policies and procedures before you make actions that will get yourself banned. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you listen up! I have been back-and-forth via email with several officials for the wikimedia foundation, and they have said your actions were unjustifined. I was to be notified of your deletion of my submitted article, with a list of why you believe it was not "wiki worthy". The fact that you failed to do this, and then upon re-submition on my part, you repeated the same action, is thus, unjustified. You have been reported, and they are aware of who you are. They are looking into the matter, and in a few days, both parties (myself and you) are to be contacted with what they have decided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.133.142 (talk • contribs).

Okey doke. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Tempo tantrum

I think we clashed when adding the first tag - I got an edit conflict, put it through again and it worked. (The prior user used {{afd}} instead of using subst:, so maybe it wasn't you.) I think the band fails notability standards, although the existence of a semi-legitimate Website gives me pause. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

Are users not allowed to write about themselves? Also I never get to finish my entry because people like you keep deleting it. I believe the purpose of a wiki entry is that it can be improved. So if I leave an outline, others will come and finish it. I would like people from my website to finish it. They had suggested a "First time here?/FAQ" for the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pockyrevolution (talk • contribs).

No, it's generally not a good idea to create an article about a website made by you or somebody you know. --Merovingian 05:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghorban Tourani

Could you tell me why you deleted Ghorban Tourani article just now??? Refdoc 05:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedied as non-notable bio - the article made zero assertion of notability or importance of the subject. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you had cast one single glance at the history log, you would have noted that this article was in the making. WRT notability, a search for the two forms of his name will show you that his death was widely publicised. It is of huge importance amongst Iranian Christians and in current Iranian politics, if not to you.

The feel free to recreate it so it can go through AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you put his name into google (both versions) you get some 600 quotes - and that is only a couple of weeks after the death. Refdoc 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[...] He should never have been speedily deleted, nor is your entry in AfD correct Googfle produces > 600 hits rather than the 35 you mention. His death has led to diplomatic protests[2] an dhas been reported in Norwegian secular newspapers[3] How more notably can a small minister in an Iranian backwater be? Refdoc 10:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My speedy at the time was correct and my AfD now is correct - all AfDs are as long as they are in good faith, and this is - and, frankly, who are you to say it isn't? This is NO mistake. Additionally, I acknowledged that ...Tori got more google hits than ...Tourani which gets practically nothing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

john fillingsteeth

I don't suppose that you would be able to stomach an article that is not 100% serious and thought provoking? Although it may seem to you to be nonsense, it was put here, by me, for a reason, and I was hoping that it would be left on for at least a few days. I am quite sure that the servers at wikipedia can handle the extra load from my three paragraph entry. I thank you for your tireless effort at keeping an online site that could be a very fun and enjoyable experience for many from getting too low brow. The gents at the New Yorker will surely sleep better tonight.

Sincerely,

John Fillingsteeth.

My pleasure. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam barclay, silly entry

Apologies for the vanity entry you just deleted moments ago. I had intended to delete is within minutes of sending a friend a link to demonstrate that it was possible to possible to create an article about anyone. Then I found that I couldn't delete it and the rest is history.

Anyhow, please don't put a strike against my record. I'll never do it again.

2012 Apopalyptic Theories

Thanks for deleting that article. I was just revising the db tag to say that it didn't cover any information that wasn't covered elswhere and had no content that unified the information. But yea, it was a terrible article. --Brentt 08:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hooray!

Yes, they might be pointless (I had to check on your userpage if you had this one already) but I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for weeding through the new page junk added by those anons who have taken the time to sign up and create nonsense. It's good to know I'm not alone in the speedy deletion war. Harro5 08:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

While I already have the award (check my talk archives), thanks anyway. And to any other admin reading this, Newpages patrol is the single most important thing right after RC patrol that any admin can do - the amount of heaping garbage that is added is astounding, and we need to be vigilant. In six or so hours of just new page patrol tonight, I have speedied more than 225 "articles" and initiated more than a dozen AfDs. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up about welcomes. I nominated the article The Dark Channel for deletion. The original author User:DarkGrammar keeps deleting the nomination. TheRingess 08:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

I have a request regarding your indefinite block of User:Daniel Brandt. This certainly is not (lord, no!) to question this block, just a request for clarification. Your comment in the block log and on his user talk page mention his page Wikipedia Watch. Now I'm certain what prompted the block was (in addition to his previous, already documented behavior) his assembly and publication of a "hit list" and not his criticism of WP. However, I attempted to insert this clarification in this section of Brandt's article and was reverted for not having a source. I suppose in principle this is correct, so I am wondering if there is any place on WP or the mailing list where you clairified your reasons for blocking him so I could use that as a reference. I think it's important that the article not imply that we go around blocking people for criticizing us. Thanks. Gamaliel 10:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I've never been on the mailing list, or IRC, for that matter, (I believe all Wikipedia actions should be conducted where most people will see it - on the Wiki, and the fact that so much decision making occurs on the Mailing List and on IRC is a disgrace). Second, I could care less that Brandt criticised the Project and I could care less about his little websites. The simple fact was that he was making extensive legal threats and was attempting to reveal the identities, contact info, and personally identifiable information of our editors and administrators, which is not only unconscionable but a complete and utter violation of Wikipedia policies and procedures. He had no productive edits and the indef block levied against him is the same as would be for any disruptive "editor" with his level of destructive intent. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing the matter up. Gamaliel 10:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I stumbed onto this page after posting on Brandt's block on his talk page. In your reason for blocking him (which I support for most of your reasons) you give as proper reason for a block "was attempting to reveal the identities, contact info, and personally identifiable information of our editors and administrators, which is not only unconscionable but a complete and utter violation of Wikipedia policies and procedures." As I asked on his talk page, how/why is using means available on the internet to find out information on an internet user (say an wp editor/admin) reason to block someone. In conjunction with his other actions it doesn't matter, but say I started digging up as much info on wp editors like he is but don't use sock puppers or bads faith edits. Is that enough to warrant a block? You say reveling info about editors/admin is "unconscionable", so whats the difference in wp digging up info on Brandt that makes it conscionable? I would note that Brandt's article states the "the main reason for the ban" is his attempts at getting info on wp editors/admin and not the more defendable reasons for blocking.--Silver31u 14:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The arguments Canderson7 makes on the Daniel Brandt talk page essentially cover everything you need to know. It was the tip of a very large iceberg, he had zero productive edits, and just like anyone else, he had to go, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Derek Perrone

Yes, I was just looking those over. The problem is that the website does not meet inclusion standards at all. --King of All the Franks 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Quit deleting my stuff

I have a right to post information which is not false to my knowledge, may be of interest to users, and is supported by an abundance of evidence. You cannot block this stuff based in Wiki rules. I am going to report you.

You are a fascist to boot. I take it there is no reasoning with you. I'll just report your abuse of discretion directly to the arbitration board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven Rollins (talk • contribs).

Woohookitty

Howdy! Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woohookitty as well, a well intentioned user nominated it for AfD instead of speedy. I fixed up that nom page for them before you performed the speedy delete, but did not yet add it to the daily log, so if you close out the AfD there should be no orphans. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the AfD right after I deleted the article as not to propogate the attack. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Just wanted to help out. BTW, haven't seen a <*> in a while, I still have my pin from Elena somewhere. Be seeing you! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Assembly of Dust page

Has been deleted twice. If you are not familiar with the group, their song was number 33 on the radio charts and they have performed with The Dead, The Who, at the Bonnaroo festival, at Madison Square Garden and more. I don't think this would qualify as a non-notable biography... additionally, the content was written by myself.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Rfkjunion (talk • contribs)

Howdy! Just a passerby, but if you specify which elements of WP:MUSIC the group meets, you'll save yourself a lot of grief and be able to avoid deletion. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
THe problem is less notability than shockingly blatant copyright violation. Highlight any random section of test and google - you'll see that Rfkjunion did not write it himself as he claims.
Rfkjunion: if you willfully ad copyvio material again, you face a block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's material that was written by myself for the band's biography, which the band uses. I assume that copyvio material would be material submitted by someone other than the author? - rfkjunior

Problem is, as it is already all over the net, and claimed under many copyrights, and as it is difficult to prove authorship with something like this, and as in its original form it likely wasn't released under the GDFL, and as it is not original, it cannot be included. Write something original, and neutral. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.... I have others that I have written... is the page blocked?

I've unblocked it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Heya.

Nice to see someone else with a strong view on wikipedia ;)

Also.. love the JMS photo. (Big B5 fan.) D.valued 08:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We B5 fans are just coming out of the woodwork today! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikistress

"Users who were confused and were worried I was freaking out: 2 3."

;) // Pathoschild 08:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thusly changed! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dorked-up Speedies

James Mishler: Hi, I was examining the deletion log and noticed that you deleted this article as "vanity". The article seems to have been recreated, and does contain considerable a claim of notability: managing editor of what it describes as "the leader in disseminating information on developing sales trends in the retail and distribution tiers of both [comics and games] industries." If you still want it to be deleted, please use AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

With this page I was in contact with the author (Mr. Mishler) and worked with him to create an acceptable version (the one you now see) that properly stressed hiw importance. See User_talk:Mystaros and edit comments in the history. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

B C Joshi Hi, it's me again. Here's another purported A7 candidate that you deleted, but it clearly states that the man is an Indian Army general, and that he raised a counterinsurgency force known as The Rashtriya Rifles. These facts are widely reported in the Indian national press, so there was absolutely no chance of it qualifying under A7. Again I'm undeleting so no harm has been done, but please, please be careful about A7 speedies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You also deleted Jake Putnam, even though the article clearly makes the claim that Putnam won an Emmy award and numerous other awards. Undeleted. I also undeleted Sambit Bal, which is about a founder editor of Wisden Asia Cricket.

I don't know how long you've been doing this, but while many of your deletions are entirely appropriate, you're clearly causing collateral damage by inappropriate deletions. Please be more careful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to leave you a note yesterday asking you to be more careful also, but I see I've been beaten to it. One thing I'd suggest is, if you feel a speedy might be considered borderline, tag it but don't delete it. If someone else comes along and agrees that it's speediable, then they can delete it. I also happen to like using WP:XD, but I realize it's not everyone's style. Anyway, I don't see that this is a huge deal or anything, but I hope you take a somewhat more conservative approach in the future. Friday (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I take full responsibility for my actions (good and bad), including screwing up those speedies (Putnam, Bal, and Joshi). I will be more conservative in the future. That said, there needs to be more admins on new page patrol - the amount of garbage that is shoveled in is utterly astounding, and oftentimes I see many of us just parked on RC while some truly awful stuff gets through untouched on NP. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I want to say thanks for doing newpages patrol--you do get through an astounding amount of deletions and most of them are spot on. Yesterday Jimbo made a comment on this subject on WikiEN-L which I endorse, so I think it bears repeating: "that it's ok for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there behind them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
And thanks for keeping me in check. Do you have a www link to Jimbo's WikiEN-L post (I don't read or participate in the mailing lists - like I have said elsewhere, I think it is a Bad Thing that so much policy making / consensus deriving occurs there rather than out in the open here on the wiki). Thanks again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Steven Rollins

I threw down the gauntlet for Steven; if you are willing to consider this matter further I'd recommend waiting until he responds, if ever. Keep up the good work! - RoyBoy 800 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You've been tagged as a vandal by what I believe is a sockpuppet of Mr. Rollins' (WP:AN). Also, do you think that we'll need to protect Steven Rollins' talk page soon? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

David A. Wells and David "Boomer" Wells

I just read the entire vanity page and autbiographical page, according to the creator of Wikipedia, and I have found how much of an idiot that I was. I did not remember the scene in which Frederick Douglass in The Narrative of Frederick Douglass fought Mr. Covey for allegedly two hourds, and that it was a novel rather than an unbiased biography. I apologize for wasting Wikipedia space, as I had recently used this site for several of my research projects (invloving McCarthyism and the Salem Witch Trials). I'll just put that on uncyclopedia.com, where it belongs.

I would, however, like a clarification on what "outside" or "independent research" is.

Thank you very much, David Wells

No problem. As to your last question, I'm not quite sure what you are asking - could you clarify it? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Unblock him now

There's valid reason to keep this unjust block in place, please unblock this user RIGHT NOW so that he can continue to contribute to wikipedia:User_talk:Diatrobica;l--Halopinacka 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Black List

I think that you should be informed that you are on the http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html Black List. I wouldn't worry or anything if I were you, just conceal any personal information he doesn't have about you. No need to make things easy for banned users. Izehar (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I have known for a while (see my user page). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Diatrobical et al

Thanks for the help, yesterday. I was just about to leave and was worried that if someone else didn't take over he'd be wreaking havoc. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jeffrey, please help

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me resolve this longstanding problem. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

Thanks for the spam. While I can see that you are frustrated about the situation, I regret that I do not know enough about the subject to productively help the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, what?

You have recently removed Leticia Moreno article (no claim of notability aside from being a good student). I don't what do you undestand to be enought to appear at wikipedia but being considered one of the two best violin players in the world is enought. I have talked about her formation but is not an student. Don't you should request a votation before deleting an article written by three people? -- Stoni (22:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

There are no references to this claim. As is, the article is still a non-notable biography, and the claim to notability is tenuous, at best. Nevertheless, I have restored it and put it on AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tonight, He Comes

Whdid you delete this entry?????????

Nonsense: there was no context at all, so all that was there was something about some guy landing on a planet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Was my article inappropriate?

Hey, you seem to have recommended my article for deletion...I thought the MediaWiki websites category was a place for people who engineered websites around the MediaWiki software to create an article about their site, is this not correct? Sorry if I broke a rule posting it; wasn't intentional... --RossOliver

You did nothing wrong, but there should be a vote on deletion to see if the site is notable enough for inclusion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh ok, that's fair enough... --RossOliver

Incomplete Afd

Hi there! I noticed that you didn't complete the AfD nomination for the PESwiki article you tagged with AfD. Typically, a nomination is completed immediately. If you're not familiar with the process, please visit WP:AFD and review the 3 step process. {{subst:afd}} is only the first step. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Urk, sorry about that, forgot who you were, didn't mean to imply you didn't know how to complete an AfD. I'm guessing you're probably familiar with the process. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Exceptionally familiar with the process... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Dunn

hello, was why aaron dunn entry deleted? thanks

Non-notable bio. Additionally, if you remove the AfD notice from Musopen again, you will be blocked from editing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I am just starting to write the entry and was planning on adding more information later. What constitutes a noteable biography? What kind of information should I include about him to make this notable? Thanks
WP:BIO. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. One of the criteria is having a published periodical wiht an audience of more than 5000. Can this be applied to a publication set to be released next week or in the near future? There is a story about him that was just accepted on Slashdot and a few newspapers. Thanks.
Usually, no. Wait til he's published. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Le Bec Fin

I'm all for an article on a notable restaurant. I deleted it once before because it came off as link spam. When the user reposted it, he'd expanded it somewhat but it's still an ad. I let him know what he needed to do to correct it; his other edits are quite good for a brand new user. I think AfD is a rather good idea in this case - Lucky 6.9 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Activity on AFD

Hi Jeffrey. You've made a number of nominations on AFD recently, one of which I believe may have been in error. Can you please take a second look at the Khalil Beschir article and consider withdrawing this nomination? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Take Down the Grand Master

You speedy-deleted this page while I was looking for a template to make it more acceptable, which is fine, I guess, you couldn't have known. But you seem to have a habit of deleting things without leaving an actual reason in the log, judging by most of the discussions on this page where people need to come and ask you why. I think that's rather unprofessional of you.- Arvedui

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There are actual reasonsare righ there in the log. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! A suggestion for the future, use the preview button a lot and don't create the article until it's in a format that you think would avoid deletion. The assumption is that any article should be in 'ready' form after each and every edit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Well then, my apologies. All I saw when I checked the deletion link was "Content was:etc", which didn't seem like much of a reason to me. And when it seemed like the majority of discussions here were people asking why you had deleted their articles (and as the log shows, you're a busy guy!), I mistakenly assumed that their deletion notices had been as informative. Sorry again. (BTW, I briefly looked for (and found what I thought was) the log, but I didn't get to the link you just provided.) - Arvedui 05:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

musopen

thanks for you help with the earlier article, I'll wait for his publication. musopen has been mentioned in the media to an audience of more than 5,000 people. I didnt mention a few things in the first entry I placed, I should have completed it before posting. I was just wondering now that I have corrected it, how long the AfD process takes? thanks

About five days. Additionally, a couple of edits back, you removed, wholesale, our conversation above. That is considered vandalism. That is your second strike. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and procedures. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought my personal problem would just add clutter to the other questions.

thanks for all the help.

Michael Zhao on Mousesports

Although I can see your point of vanity, I tried to edit it. However, with the amount of CPL teams that have their own Wiki's, I felt that it is only fair Mousesports has their own. Please edit on my talk page the reasons for vanity. Michaelzhao 05:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Michaelzhao

Hulk 2

I thought I requested that you don't remove the Hulk 2 article without first talking to me about it.

You did not request a thing of me, you made a general request, which, in service to Wikipedia, I have ignored.

The film's future existence may not be entirely sure,

Stop right there. Read that again. 'Nuff Said.

...but with all the information I've heard about it, as well as all the websites that are devoted to it, it's safe to say that it is very likely to come out. Besides, why not just put the information that was used as a backup for deleting Hulk 2 into the article? If the film does come out (which is likely), then the page will just be created again! Scorpionman 21:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, when the film has been announced in the press, the deals have been signed, and whatnot, then a page will be created, because then the future will no longer be unsure, the info presented will be verifiable, and the page will have actual content. Until such time, as the page has been speedied thrice and had one solid AfD in favor of deletion, the page shall continue to be unceremoniously excised from Wikipedia for the good of all. To whit and whatnot. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jerome Barber

renegade68 I have been attempting to start a page for Dr. Jerome Barber [4], a martial arts instructor associated with the modern arnis page. For some reason you locked it. I admit that I am very new to wikipedia and am unfamiliar with the protocols. Dr. Barber is noted as having the only accredited college program in the said martial art, is listed in the Black Belt hall of fame and is the founder of his own independent Arnis association which hosted the first world wide modern arnis symposium. [5]

I cannot understand why his name will not be allowed. If it was do to my ignorance of the rules here please dont let Dr. Barber be locked out of entry on my account.

The lock was because a user or users had in quick succession created pages on Proffessor Barber, which did not state the importance or significance of the subject. I have unlocked the page, but beware that the aricle will still be subject to deletion, or at least a vote thereof. Thanks for your contributions and good luck. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

renegade68 Thank you for your quick response. I will do the best I can.

XBIZ Deletion

You deleted the stub for Xbiz (a thriving webmaster community), and I ask you to be fair and also delete this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xnations

And that is a good candidate for speedy deletion, and has been deleted. In the future, if you see something that fits the criteria, feel free to tag it with the appropriate speedy template and an administrator will attend to it right away. Not all deletable articles are speedyable, and that is why we have AfD. Feel free to continue to contribute to The Project, just make sure material meets our standards of inclusion. Cheers. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

  • Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. (guerrilla folk punk)
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style (guerrilla folk punk) or the local scene of a city (as in the salt lake city folk punk scene); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

is that enough? Bombsandbeatinghearts 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave Moulton

Just wanted to let you know that I've made some improvements to the Dave Moulton article (bicycle builder) that you nominated for deletion. Please take a look, and see if any of your concerns have been eliminated. Thanks. Crypticfirefly 06:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

VECTRAX

Hi this is vectrax, i cant be bothered figuring out how to use the bbcode again at the moment to seperate this properly but you deleted my contribution, GhostFinders. Why? And you didn't even send an email or anything??

First, about talk pages. They do not use any type of bulletin board code of any sort, just normal wiki code. See this page for more.
Second, the GhostFinders page was deleted as spam (A4, AKA Attempt to Contact). Whether or not it was your intention to write it as an ad, that is how it read, and deletion was called for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:FARC

Thanks for your forbearance with Roy Orbison, despite the end result being the same. I hope that, one of these days, the people who enthusiastically vote "remove" on FARC are going to help to fix the problems that they identify rather than just objecting to them. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

William "Duke" Procter

I think that the argument for non-notability is somewhat arbitary and speedy deletion may not be justified in this context. The page was linked from Deaths in 2005, which are supposedly notable deaths. The references included in the article included a reference to material from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which I think views the death of remaining World War I veterans in 2005 as notable. --Big_Iron 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Being in Deaths in 2005 is irrelevant; anyone can add to that whether or not the subject is notable (not that they should...), which is certainly evidenced by the amount of redlinks in the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
One more thing, there are now only three remaining Surviving veterans of World War I from Canada and he would certainly have been the last one from British Columbia at the time of his death. --Big_Iron 20:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Read WP:BIO: The most basic test is "has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" Having served in WWI is not inherrantly notable, and neither is being one of the last survivors from a given region. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, on an unrelated matter, according to Veterans Affairs Canada, he was also "the oldest horseshoe player to ever compete in the Canadian Championships, participating in the Championships in 1997 and 1998." He seems to pass the Google test. --Big_Iron 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that you may be missing the point here. First, the entry in WP:BIO refers to "people who have been dead for some time" (time frame not clearly defined). Secondly, in this case, I believe that, to some degree, his death was considered notable and newsworthy in Canada exactly because of the timing, because it represents the end of an era. Thirdly, despite the statement, there are numerous entries in Wikipedia for people whose main point of interest is their death rather than their life. --Big_Iron 12:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If there's enough question on a deletion to warrant discussion, it might be a good idea to list it on Afd. That way more people will participate. Friday (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm back. Okay, two things: there is still zero assertion of notability anywhere in the article and it still fails WP:BIO. Looks like Friday Simon recreated it, so I have AfD'd it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Place articles style guide

I'm looking for guidance on proper formatting for articles on geographical places (particularly their titles), but haven't found it in anything I've read yet. For example, a mountain might be listed simply by its name ("Mount Kearsarge"), or it might also include its state in parentheses (Mount Kearsarge, New Hampshire). If WP is truly international, shouldn't it also include the place's country? To compound this issue, the example I've used is the name for two separate mountains in NH. Suggestions for disambiguation?

Thanks for the welcome note. FrostHeaves 14:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:FARC/Christmas

Whatever your decision about this, it would be better if you made it before December 25th, so as to avoid a huge revert war. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 18:59

  • Nevermind. Raul has changed the December 25th Main Page article to Ido. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 19:12
    • Why on earth should there be (have been) a "huge revert war", any more so that for any other main page featured article? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Revert wars happen over even the most minor of things. I wouldn't rule it out. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 20:07

Request you withdraw your AfD nomination

Google has over 26,000 hits for the phrase as expressed this way [6]. Per my edit comment when I first saved, I am having computer problems and need to reboot frequently. The article has already grown and includes three citations including National Public Radio. My new articles have appeared on "Did you know..." three times in the last six weeks. Please withdraw your nomination. Durova 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Let the AfD decide its worthiness. Additionally, using quotes, the better method, with the phrase you provide, gathers zero hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Im David Morose

Hi there I just finished uplopading my Producer info etc. and you deleted curious why? My email is [-] please shed some light so I can get my info up.

Yours Truly David

Please read WP:VANITY, WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

David Carroll

You recently removed relevant information from the first entry I made, David Carroll I admit the link "Nook Schreier" was not to the same person, but that really was his original name, so I added that information back, minus the Wiki link.

Re: Brandt

Yes, I'm afraid keeping him here is not going to accomplish anything else. At this point, I'll leave it up to you to either block or unblock him (and I know which you'll do). It's out of my hands now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 12:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SourceryForge

This was a "When in doubt, don't delete" closure. I saw 4 delete votes and 2 keep votes (excluding the "fun name" vote, but including the very keep-oriented comment by Jcuk). That gave me the 2/3 consensus to delete, but the delete votes did not say much beyond "nn", so I felt very uncomfortable closing it as delete. In any other day, I would have closed it as delete, but I was being extra cautious that day, so I closed it as no consensus (mostly due to the lack of debate). But go ahead and relist it any time soon, or DRV it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Yes, I know. And my honest answer is, "I'm still thinking about my answer", because I just don't know. Will post it when I work it out. Rob Church Talk 20:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

FARC

A quick request - which is more by way of reducing your workload than adding to it! - when you are archiving nominations on WP:FARC, and removing {{farc}} and {{featured}} templates, please would you avoid also deleting the {{mainpage date}} templates (like this) - although the articles may no longer be featured, they did once appear on the front page, and I can't see a reason why the talk page should not continue to record the fact. It also explains the usual and otherwise bemusing spate of anon edits in the article's edit history. Thanks! -- ALoan (Talk) 23:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Discuession on Quadell

Quadell's RfB isn't the first place I clashed with NSLE (talk • contribs). He's been promoted recently and I take these debates in stride, but have to be careful because I'm only yearning to be on His level. -- Eddie 09:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And I just so happen to have this page on my watchlist, too much of a coincidence. I have my reasons, and would be willing to provide it to any admin... NSLE (T+C+CVU) 09:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Reasons for what? Do you mean Eddie's alleged bad faith? If so, admins like you and I should not be the only benefactors of such knowledge - this is not a cabal, after all, and accusing someone of something and not providing anything to back it up right away is just poor ettiquette. Additionally for clarification, I have no opinion on you or Eddie, and my involvement here is entirely related to the RfB on Quadell. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Only reason admins only is because it's on a deleted page, and I have no intentions to repost the page. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 09:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't mean you can't explain it. Also, so I can have an idea of what you are talking about, what are you talking about? (Link?). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just put simply, I've been following Eddie from the start (his two failed RFA selfnoms), his sockpuppet scandal and everything. Recently I notice a gradual change with him being more obsessed about a third RFA, and his edits have started bordering assumed bad faith, including two threats, one from me and one from Karmafist, to block over WP:HA. I'm just saying that, while I could be wrong, I'm totally convinced he's not necessarily acting in good faith. Let's leave it at that, I'm not going to comment further on this. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 09:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to talk to Me about this. I outgrew all the crazy things NSLE (T+C+CVU) mentioned and if third RfA is to be successful I have to make sure no one suspects My acivities are "in bad faith". -- Eddie 10:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive0,

I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Protections

Hi there. I see you have quite a list in your protection log of {deletedpage}s, but many of them are missing from the list at WP:PP. I know it seems bureaucratic, but it does help to have a list of them around that is broadly up to date. Could you go through your log and either delete those that have probably gone home, or list them at WP:PP in the relevant section? Thanks. -Splashtalk 13:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted all the old and newish DPs. The only active protections that remain are my user pages, indefblocked user pages, and a recently main page'd image. I'd forgotten about WP:PP - most of my protections come off re-re-redeleting garbage on newpage patrol. Thanks for the reminder. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Middle Korea

Middle Korea is not a hoax. I hate it when you people delete pages you know NOTHING about. Why was there not an afd??!? I demand that you put it back and give me the right of due process. If you arn't sure about it LEAVE IT ALONE! Leave my pages alone! There are so many power freaks on this site I don't want to stay here anymore. Why can't you people accept stuff that isn't completly netered and normal? *breathe* Put the page back please. Kilroy Collins

Sorry no. Not only is it a nonsense/hoax, it is a recently failed AfD as well. This speedy was deserved. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it a hoax? What the heck do you know about Middle Korea? I have noticed a pattern with all the people that have challenged you: You never admit you are wrong. Are you god? Can you make no mistakes? PUT MIDDLE KOREA BACK! It is a real and growing micronation that has no basis in fantasy or delusion. What do you have aganist it? I request that you never touch a article about a micronation again. This article has no resembelence to the failed one. Did you compare them?!? Kilroy Collins 14:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

SHAAZAM!

Wow, that's memory! I think you are giving away your age if you are old enough to remember that! I fondly remember watching the Shaazam/Isis hour (mostly Isis with that short little skirt hehehehehe). I can't remember the name of that actress though. GestaltG 16:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

J.R. Benson

Hi Jeffrey, you deleted this article yesterday with comment "A7 with bits of nonsense". Presumably then you may be referring to A7 and G1. By A7, WP:DVAIN has some application, and suggests, "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." I argue that "underground cult legend" and "founder, main event wrestler and creative force" are plausible assertions of notability, even if they sound a little silly and hoax-like: hoaxes do not fall directly under WP:CSD. If you consider it nonsense, WP:NONSENSE does not, so G1 certainly does not apply. I will not undelete the article or take this up further, I would just suggest that AFD would be more appropriate in this case, like it or not. jnothman talk 02:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What I've found is useful in cases like this is userfying the page. This gets it out of article space, but in a way that's (usually) less controversial than outright deletion. A note left on the user's talk page generally keeps them from becoming upset or confused about it. Just a thought. Friday (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Healing Wikipedia

I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. If this subject interest you, I'd encourage you to post you thoughts here on a special talk page I created.--Alabamaboy 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Francs2000 RfB

Hello Jeffrey O. Gustafson, could you please provide a proper and better explanation under your vote of oppostion against Francs2000's RfB as many are awaiting your answer. I don't see why we don't need any more bereaucrats disqualifies him from being a bureaucrat. SWD316 talk to me 05:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

re:subst

Subst is a server thing to substitute the code into the actual document instead of the regular way of using templates which just pulls up the code from the template every time someone requests the page. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

 Hi,
I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats

You are correct in listing Cimon and Secretlondon as "other" (inactive) bureaucrats, but before listings others, be aware than a couple of the bureaucrats rarely promote but are very active in renames, which is also a bureaucrat function. -- Cecropia 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to also list Angela (don't kill me wikicommunity) and Ilyanep too, but put it up to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats. Are they active in renames? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

From the department of answering other people's questions

Hey, I noticed your question over on User talk:Jtkiefer and figured I would answer since I dont believe he has yet. The reasoning ive heard repeatedly (and which makes sense) is that every template call requires more strain on the servers, so using subst: where possible reduces strain on servers substantially (i.e. if you load my page, you only call my page, not my page plus every single template seperately). I suppose you could also make a good case for this approach by saying that since talk page adds are supposed to be YOUR comments, you dont want changes to templates retroactively changing what you said, right? -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz--Sources and Meaning

Hi, Jeffrey. I noticed that you put a merge notice on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz--Sources and Meaning. That article, although clumsily named, was created in response to a discussion at Talk:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which resulted in a consensus supporting a split. The information about the political interpretations of the book (almost all added by one contributor with a bit of an idée fixe on the subject) was creating a problem of undue weight, so the new article was the best solution. If you don't mind, I'm going to take the merge notice off again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I stumbled upon it on Newpage patrol and was unaware of the history behind its creation. If anything, the page NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS to be renamed. I haven't read through all of it, but if it is just as the akward title asserts, containing "meaning," (and it was largely written by one contributor), it might have POV issues that'll need to be addressed. Just my two cents, and thanks for the clarification. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it needs renaming badly. I'm hoping for a move to Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or something similar, but I'd like to wait for input from the primary contributor before the move. I got involved in the split by coming from an RfC, which should give you an idea of the level of tension between the contributors. So I want to go easy on User:Rjensen (the main author of the page), who just bit the bullet and split his own material out of the main article, in accordance with the consensus but against his own previously expressed wishes.
As you say, there are also POV issues with the article, but Rjensen is correct that there is a fair amount of scholarly discussion of the topic so I don't think the solution is to merge it back in — what needs to happen (after the dust from the split has settled) is for opposing scholarly views (rejecting the political interpretation) to be given air on the page. Whatever its name ends up being. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Random new user comment from someone named Duke

Hey You edited My Uss capodanno page.......THANK YOU it looks much much better

De nada. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Skellington

Yeah, it was my mistake. I've have noticed this before you informed me. I thought Jack Skellington's name was actually Jack Skeleton. Anyway. thanks! --SkinnerIJA 08:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf melmac 08:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Francés

What on earth do you mean this article "lacks information on the importance of the subject matter"? There's what she does, her birthplace and bibliography. All the appropiate links have been made to related articles. It explains more than most stubbed articles, and displays all information known about her by the public (she only became a notable artist recently). I hope I have made my point, lest the article will be deleted again. - 09:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini art post

No, that isn't even close to good enough. Read WP:BIO. We have standards of inclusion which this is failing to meet. I have put it up for AfD. It still needs more info to prove importance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
In the unlikely instance that you want to be informed about anything regarding anyone else's article, I'll try and spruce it up a bit with the tiny specks of information that are available, or else delete it entirely. However, it won't magically redeem itself overnight. - 09:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)The Great Gavini art post
The next tiome you make a snarky personal attack against anyone again, I'm blocking you without warning. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I meant that if you want to keep being informed about article and/or have information regarding Francés, you're welcome to contribute to the article. I'm only looking for information! - 09:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini art post

[Removed rediculous nonsense per the warning at the top my page - Pay attention people]

1) It was a personal attack, chief. 2) Try and find one single bit of vandalism by me anywhere. Go ahead. Try. 3) Complain about me to whomever you like. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you deleted my last post ('rediculous nonsense'?), but anyhow, I'm supposed to make contact and resolve the matter with a user [7] before trying to get their SysOp privileges removed. I was being serious in my last post here, and deletion of it indicates to me that you have no respect for my opinions. Attempts to intimidate me made in your last post have concerned me, and I will take appropiate actions (ie. 'complain to whomever I like'). - 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini talk
It's not deleted, it's still in the history. Second, there is nothing to "resolve," unless you want to get taken to task for making personal attacks and accusing users of vandalism without any proof. Please complain to someone. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
If you think there's 'nothing to "resolve"', then that's this where this matter ends. Bye. - Greatgavini 12:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
THANK you! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

hi, i wrote up character summaries and added lots of excellent pics, etc. for my favorite characters from the sopranos and oz. why are you tagging them with cleanup icons. the summaries are SUPPOSED to be graphic because the shows are graphic. Otherwise, they wouldn't be summaries. and if you think that's harsh, check curses and sexual orientation, etc. on wikipedia, that stuff shows up as well. there's nothing wrong with giving detail to the character's storylines in the summaries. i wrote them up quite well. the following characters were done by me: Brendan Filone, Matthew Bevilaqua, Sean Gismonte, Mikey Palmice, Ronald Barlog, and Nikolai Stanislofsky. What is the problem with my excellent summaries?

I don't care about the content of the summaries (painful flaws aside) - Look at the pages versus our other similar pages. They need to be wikified, and the images need to conform to our standars. You mentioned on one of the talk pages that it is how you wanted it - but this isn't your personal webspace, it is an encyclopedia with standards. DO NOT REVERT THE CLEANUP TAGS AGAIN until actual progress has been made on these articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning to Zedkatuf

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

Hi, I think this warning was a little over-the-top, the user is evidently new, and I looked through your delete log and couldn't see any sites linking to his personal website. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It was entirely warranted - see and you didn't look hard enough:
  1. 08:13, 8 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Dezso futak" (fake dab; A4)
  2. 08:13, 8 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "DezFutak" (fake dab; A4)
  3. 08:12, 8 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Dez Futak" (fake dab; A4)
  4. 08:11, 8 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Dfutak" (fake dab; A4)
  5. 08:10, 8 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Dez futak" (garbage)
You can see for yourself the content of the pages. This was Spam, period, hideously (and poorly) disguised at that. I do not make such warnings lightly and without cause, thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I can, all it says is "you may be looking for" and then a link to his Wikipedia page. How is that spam? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A completely innapropriate use, by the way. And going to his user page shows external links to his personal projects. This user has no other actual productive edits outside his user page. It is spam, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a simple misunderstanding of namespaces. Plenty of users have redirects from other userspace articles to their username. And plenty of users have links to their websites on their userpage. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
"Users," sure - but this guy has not made one contribution outside his userpage. And his attempts at redirecting have been deleted by others in the past. I'm sorry, but this is still a no-brainer for me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeffrey. I have to say that I agree with Talrias. I believe you used {{spam3}} straightaway with that user. While I understand your frustration, it would be better in the future to be very sure of not biting newcomers and giving more warnings than a final warning. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 18:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Sam. It is very important that we extend extra patience to new users; he may not have found anything yet that he is comfortable contributing to. If it is the case that he has misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia, a polite note letting him know how we operate is much more likely to turn him into a productive contributor. From his userpage, it looks like he could be useful to us, so lets try to convince him to stick around and make useful contributions. Threatening bans (on the first warning, no less) isn't going to make him a productive contributor. -- Essjay · Talk 18:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've given it some further thought, and I have decided to file an request for comments on your actions. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 20:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

deletion of WP:LEGAL

Hi, if you are going to delete a page that's listed for deletion, like the above, listed at WP:MFD, could you please close the discussion as well. I just closed the discussion and deleted the page, not realising I'd been redirected. My own fault I know, I really should be in bed and that's where I am going now, but you didn't do me any favours there either. Anyway, I have that off my chest and now I retore to bed. Steve block talk 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That is all thanks to my infamiliarity to the MfD process. My bad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I am frankly a little surprised you nominated and performed the deletion. You are aware it's bad form to mix those two actions? Sorry if I'm coming on a bit strong here, but your actions have raised my eyebrows slightly. Perhaps it's that you are a longtime contributor, and it seems a basic error. Still, no harm done. My apologies if I have offended you in any way.Steve block talk 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It all becomes clear...

I'd been scratching my head for the last thirty minutes... but now I see. I would never have guessed such ananchist tendancies lurked under there. Good for you. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily anarchist, but I believe the arbcom has become such a complete and utter disaster that it needs to be destroyed or overhauled so completely that it is unrecognizable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

John Kay (economist)

Hi, can you clarify why you deleted John Kay (economist) [8] please? Kappa 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it because of the big ole copyvio tag you put on it. Copyvio shouldn't be here, even in the history of a page. New copyvio pages without a history should be deleted as quickly as possible in all cases. If he his notable, someone will write a page about him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think you should try to get some kind of consensus for actions like that instead of taking them unilaterally? Kappa 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? It's called POLICY: Actually read the copyvio page before accusing someone of working unilaterally. All new copyvios MUST be speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not my interpretation of the page. Perhaps you could point out which part of it supports your contention? Kappa 13:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Interpretation? I mean, did you read it? At all? The FIRST thing you see in the link I provide is, quote, "Blatant copyright infringements of commercial sources may now be speedied." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well it goes on to clarify that a commercial content provider is "someone engaged in directly making money off the content". The website [9] doesn't make money directly from the content, as an enclopedia or magazine does, its purpose is to provide information about the topic. Any money it causes to be made is indirect. Secondly the link you gave requires that no assertion of permission seems likely. In this case the author of the page appeared to be the copyright holder and thus there was every chance that he would give permission. Kappa 14:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There is still commerical potential, which is nevertheless irrelevant - all copyvio, no matter the source, must be removed. Period. The only concession is if it is GFDL/CC/PD, which this aint. I am having trouble trying to figure out what your problem is. You tagged and blanked the page. Nuff said. Copyvio. Nuff said. Policy adhered to. Nuff said. Conversation over. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Compromise on DCV and an apology

In recent days I have grown disgusted with Deeceevoice's comments and actions. As a result, I am withdrawing my support of her. That said, Justforasecond has behaved very poorly throughout this entire affair but more so in recent days, placing comments on DCV's talk page merely to stir up trouble. As such, I am proposing that both DCV and JFAS be placed on personal attack parole for a year at [10] Perhaps this is a compromise that a majority of the parties involved could agree to. Please check it out and see what you think. In addition, as a side note to this I am apologizing for my use of "lynching" to describe this RfAr. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your constructive comments on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
PS: Just to let you know that we might be related - my great grandmother's last name was Gustafson and she was from your neck of the woods. Have you traced your ancestry at all? -- Francs2000 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
OK probably not then. Looking at the family tree her father was from Sweden and I imagine it's quite a common Swedish name. -- Francs2000 13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

John Kay yadda blah blah

Hi Jeffrey. It's per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Speedy_everything.3F -- I would have mentioned this to you when I restored the article, except I saw from your talk you'd already been made aware of it. I don't think this is a clear enough candidate for speedy deletion, so the standard WP:CP process should be allowed to run its course. --Nick Boalch ?!? 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Hi, I noticed that some of your user subpages are protected, and have no recent vandalism. Protection policy says to avoid leaving these protected unneccessarily. Please leave any replies on my talk page. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 01:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Commitee

"For reasons all my own, I do not recognize the authority of the Arbitration Committee." - Are you serious, or is this meant humorously? exolon 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The current Arbcom is a disaster. My statement is serious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, this is not a statement on my views about the people on Arbcom, who are all fine editors. Nor will I ever do anything to obstruct arbcom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


WP:FARC

First, let me thank you (if I have not already) for the sterling work that you do in making the decisions on FARC. I notice that you have "kept" Iowa class battleship and removed {{farc}} from the talk page. Just so you know, there is a template {{farcfailed}} that can be added so readers and editors can find the archived discussion in the future. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, THAT'S the template. For the life of me, I couldn't remeber what it was when I closed it today, and was going to go back to an older kept article to find it later today when I got done with this round of Newpage patrol. Thanks for the heads up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem - the template is probably mentioned on the Talk page (or one of its archives). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Larry mullen jr

Do you know Larry mullen jr is the drummer for U2. What is the problem in me posting a link to a page about Larry? He plays the drums for the band the page is about, U2. You are out of order deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keepitlive (talk • contribs).

Um...... What? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Urm http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U2&action=history shamone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.209.126.189 (talk • contribs).
So I take it you are the vandal 172.209.126.189 who was reverted by multiple admins and who I blocked for vandalising the U2 page. Don't say anything else lest ye wish more blockage, shamone! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Block me if you like but I was not the original vandal. All I did was add a link to the page about the drummer. It was user Kristbg who kept vandalising my link.
Now go ahead and block me permanently, this isn't my usual isp.... Shamone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.209.126.189 (talk • contribs).
If you insist... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bounty Source

Why do you keep deleting the entry that I (as well as others) keep creating for Bounty Source? Yes, the first time I created this article, it was a direct copy and paste from the website itself. But the latest entry contained entirely original text and none of it what-so-ever directly came from the www.bountysource.com website. - User:wkonkel

Jeffrey:
Having looked over the issue, I agree with User:wkonkel. The latest iteration of the page doesn't appear to be a copyvio, and you can't G4 a page that hasn't gone through AFD. I agree that the page deserves deletion, but I think it would be best to let AFD sort it out.
All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I misinterpreted the current page as a recreation of the currently closed AfD for the article. Looking at it though, good call on reversing me. (Though, someone'll need to update the AfD to reflect the change). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Both of you: thanks. Wkonkel 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I reopened the AFD and left Johntex a note on his talk page. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

PDS

Hi Jeffrey, 67.132.42.130 is the IP of Princeton Day School. Some kids at our school contribute useful edits to Wikipedia while other kids may sometimes vandalize. I don't think it's fair to block the whole URL on account of a few kids. And also Mr. Downey acknowledges that he is a closet communist. Thanks for keeping our article to standard though. -Mendy Fisch

WP:NPA

You wrote:

That's right. Because if he's elected, Arbcom will be destroyed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate really is just plain awful. Seriously. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't necessary, is it? It isn't very civil, and is violating NPA. Just try to keep things in mind. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Although true, it was innapropriate. I've stricken the last part out, but not my support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't making any value judgments on the truthfulness of the statement, but sometimes, even obvious things should probably go unsaid. Thanks, and sorry to have to bring it up. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to apologize, calling me on it was called for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named sees Dead People

RE: WP:MW... yes, I know about it, but I was being serious. Someone you might consider a "friend" here on Wikipedia (or some quiet editor who just goes about her business) might just not show up one day. You might think they took a wikibreak, or decided to leave WP, but they might actually have left this world. People who have made good, unheralded additions to WP, just die. Does anyone notice? Does anyone really care to what happens to someone possibly halfway around the world who they talked to once or twice over the Internet? It's just a sad proposition... sorry for the diatribe. Enough melancholy... here's a happy article. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A. O. L. Atkin

You deleted A. O. L. Atkin while I was editing it. I typed up a stub, and was just about to expand it. There were a number of things wrong with what you did: (1) Please don't delete articles seconds after they're created without even tagging them. (2) Please don't delete articles without checking who created them. I am a long-time admin, and I would be unlikely to create non-notable articles without reason. You might have asked why I created it. (3) If you had checked "what links here" to the page, you would have seen that quite a few articles link to this person, who is notable.

Anyway, now I am undeleting the article and going back to work on it. —Lowellian (reply) 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Your work on new pages patrol is appreciated, and I understand sometimes these things happen. —Lowellian (reply) 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

bolsvandia

have you not read the article, it tells you why there are less than a dozens unique hits

Template:Dangh

Can you restore this please? I use it to list articles for deletion, as I find it quicker than the {afd} tag. If I have to put it in a user subpage, then can it be at something like {User:Danghdel}} or something? Thanks. --Dangherous 19:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk to the admin that deleted it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Other Me

Sorry, I assumed the page was autobiographical nonsense on the part of the user. Thanks for correcting the mistake. haz (user talk) 20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hilarity, hypocricy

In my time here, I have never been biased in my actions, so This edit is both uncalled for and a personal attack. I resent the implication. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an absurd overreaction. You should apologise to me for shouting on my user page. Calsicol 21:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, wikipedia, the characters you attract! O, hypocricy! Walamazoo! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Kingmaker (band)

Could you explain why you deleted this article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The version that existed - as "Kingmaker(" - was a decided and very obvious A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Note also that I had copy-edited and expanded the article, and moved it to [[Kingmaker (band}]], before you deleted it. It would, at the very least, have been courteous to have contacted those who were editing it before deleting it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
When I look here, I see no obvious A7. I see a reasonable stub about a band I don't know. A quick glance at allmusic reveals a bio there (usually a good sign) and a record on Chrysalis Records, which is a pretty decent indication that they may meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. I wish you'd be more careful about deletions; I know people have brought up questionable deletions to you before, but you don't seem to be responding to this feedback. Especially when you see that other experienced editors have touched the article, I think it's good to think twice about just deleting it. If you really think it's a speedy, tag it and see how others respond. This isn't much extra work and it's safer. Friday (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for creamy goodness

I'm disappointed at your response to your RFC. Do you think it would be wise to take criticism to heart rather than reacting with scorn? Friday (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Scorn? No. Look at the edit summary: kersploosh. That's what I genuinely think about it. It's kersplooshy. Absurd. Slightly humorous. And it's an entirely retional request to be referred to in the formal in such a formal setting, no? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I misinterpreted your response. But I still don't see that your reponse is useful, or relevant to the concerns that have been brought up. Friday (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a request for comment, and I am free to completely ignore it if I wish, which I will continue to do (in substance). Of course my respons wasn't useful, I did not intend it to be - I was simply asking, if they must comment on me, to please formalize the discourse. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would be grateful if you would take the time to respond to some of the comments made at your request for comments. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Talrias. I respect your right to bring an RFC on me, and for others to comment as well. Aside from my request for more formality in the proceedings, I have nothing to say that would be productive. Thank you for taking time in this matter. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you've replied here as well, I'll also reply here (you don't need to copy it across to my talk page). What I and others would like to see is a reply stating how you will change (or not change) your behaviour based on this RFC. I have changed it as you have requested. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Technically, you have not, and my reply above still stands for the time being. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Gustafson, I don't think that having an RFC exist against you is a statement that you're unfit for what you do (I've had an RFC against me before too). But what RFCs do is juxtapose the way that different people look at the project, and their goal is to result in the kind of consensus that makes the Wikipedia project a reality. It would be very helpful if you could at least state your position on the issue on the RFC page. Thanks, silsor 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but giving my opinion (which I do have) on the matter will not make a difference. In, um, anything, really, let alone forming policy consensus. Is it not enough that I am aware of it and am taking each argument and comment in good faith? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to consensus of action among users, not policy consensus. In this case I personally am content if you at least consider your future actions in light of of arguments and comments made in the RFC. silsor 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course I've considered them, and a reply is not necessary for me to prove that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy

Hi. Yesterday I uploaded an article refered to a RPG club in Madrid (Cd-crom) but it has been deleted. Before rewriting it I would like to know why you considered that article had no space in wikipedia.

Per our most basic inclusion guidlines, your club does not meet our standards. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain please what is the difference between our club and LUDD or Lambda Alpha Chi? Maybe if we introduce a whole set of our activities could we gain access to wikipedia? (I agree that the article was too short).

We are a ever-growing club with 250 members in 12 years of existance, with activities during all the year and probably the biggest club about RPGs in Madrid.

Thank you.

There is a huge difference to your club and an international fraternity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Harassment by FSF

Stop harassing other users - specifically Massiveego - just because they disagree with you. I have also warned BD2412 for similar behaviour. freestylefrappe 13:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, FSF. I dissagree with the contention that it is "harassment." I simply illuminated a voting pattern that should be taken into consideration. And while it was only in the RfA in which I am interested, it was just not because I disagreed with him - I respect his right to vote, and speak his mind. Calling what I did "harassment" is also certainly your right, I guess, but I feel it is over-the-top and completely uncalled for, as this is my only interaction with Massiveego. Nor, for that matter, do I regularly "harass" anyone else, as you seem to be accusing me of doing by using the plural above. I'd wish you good day, but that might be considered harassment. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? Telling the beauracrat to discount his vote is not harassment? This voting pattern doesnt exist. If you had actually looked at his voting you'd see he's supporting another user who meets his standards. I also don't appreciate you modifying my comments [11]. freestylefrappe 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not tell anyone to discount anything, anywhere. Please don't put words in my mouth, and once again, do not accuse me of a pattern of non-existant "harassment."
And, I'm changing the header again.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you decided to ignore my warning [12] I've blocked you for 3 hours. freestylefrappe 14:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam from the signature formerly known as ~~~~

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

GoKrida

Hi, I noticed you were the first to comment on the GoKrida entry. This entry is put up in earnest by folks who don't know the first thing about WiKi, but are involved in a very different sort of MMORPG. Yes, I can almost hear you thinking "Oh Boy! Another RPG, how unique!" But seriously, this one is different.

The fantasy elements are there, as are some of the other standard sorts of RPG things, but what makes this one different is the fact that it is a society simulator with a mission from the Heritage Foundation. It is supposed to be educational, in a rather hard to pin down way. I've played the game for almost two years, and I can tell you, that aspect is really the best part of it.

The kids who are editing the entry are trying to make it as appropriate as possible and could use as many pointers as you could toss their way. Their heart's are in the right place, and they are likely to put up an excellent entry, once they understand how to do that.

This page may help you understand a bit more about what I am trying to say here. http://www.gokrida.org/

In GoKrida, my name is Grandmother. 24.143.68.124 19:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What the heck??

Is everything ok, your edit summary sorta freaked me for a sec. Mike 04:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unblocking yourself

Hi Jeffrey,

My biggest suggestion would be to make a formal apology on WP:AN. In light of the circumstances, the block that you were given was totally inappropriate, but as you have said, unblocking yourself wasn't exactly appropriate either. Apologize, learn from the mistake, and move on. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad Jokes

And Other Deleted Nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User:207.255.133.142 & your talk page

Hi user 207.255.133.142 had a conversation with himself (honestly he did read the history, is sorta funny) which included some personal attacks. Ive deleted these from your talk page, and have put a warning on his talk page. If you disagree with my actions revert, I just thought you'd appreachate it somewhat. Mike (T C) 00:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

How does one become an admin?

How does one become an admin?

Deng 19-01-06 09.30 CET

It's not very often...

...that I actually chuckle while reading WP. Congrats. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Re this - don't forget to update the FA count ;) Raul654 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder ...it felt like I was forgetting something. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*Cough*

Thanks. Cecropia 16:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for nominating me, and for the encouragement and support. I'm sorry the RfA was a source of controversy, but at least it ended well. I'll try not to screw things up too badly! - EurekaLott 17:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Rainbow

Thanks - it was not all that much effort, and I thought it was pretty good to start with. Much easier to polish up someone else's work that do your own! Now, if the objectors had demanded inline citations...

There is still some work to be done, as it happens: there are still parts of the rather good German version of the article which are not properly reflected... but don't tell anyone I said that ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[Reeeeeeejected] Request for arbitration

Hello, due to your failure to respond to the requests for comment about your actions in regards to the treatment of new contributors, I have opened a request for arbitration on the issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RfAr/RfC

Howdy,

First, let me assure you I have no problem with anyone contacting me about any RfCs or RfArs. I don't consider that "campaigning", so feel free to do so anytime. On the whole, my opinion of you is favorable, and I think you're among the last of people with whom ArbComm should concern itself. I also think the issue at the core of the RfC was fairly minor. That said, I understand why a failure to respond to an RfC motivated an RfAr -- if you don't even answer the complaint after two weeks, the complainants really have few options. If I can think of a succinct way to express this at RfAr, I will -- but, like you, the Committee has not been the place I'd call the most rational in the past (I'm giving the new one a clean slate, so we'll see.) Anyway, even if it is late, I strongly urge you to craft a real response to the RfC; if you do that, I will firmly support the idea that ArbComm is very premature. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Barlach

Yes, I know well what he's done. I am just saying to be patient. Give him a short leash, but don't hang him with it quite yet. See if we can gently goad him into behaving, rather than threatening him with blocks and such. Our first step should always be reason. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This user has made 5 edits, all more or less to attack another user. He is obviously a sock of someone Essjay has pissed off in the past. If he even coughs in Essjay's direction, a block would be absolutely necessary. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I don't really doubt he's a sock, but just need to be sure we don't wrongly accuse people. A close eye is needed, but not a pre-emptive iron fist. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

deletion of 2012 Apocalyptic theories

hi Jeffrey- I don't think that 2012 Apocalyptic theories should have been speedied according to WP:CSD guidelines and left a note to that effect at WP:SD, so i figured i'd give you a heads-up since you deleted it. thanks. --Heah talk 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hoo dilly, goin' back a month on that one. Looking at it again, I still believe that there is no meaningful content - while there is some similar material between the deleted content and 2012 section on Theories of apocalypticism and/or spiritual transformation, the latter is decidedly more substantive while the former is mostly gibberish and copyvio of a religious website. You are probably better off just forking 2012 section on Theories of apocalypticism and/or spiritual transformation into a new 2012 Apocalyptic theories or writing a new version as it would be better than what I speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Howdy

I noticed your oppose vote on Banes's admin nomination and respect it. I am not always correct in my judgement of others actions, especially for how they will act in the future tense as shown by the events of my first admin nominee who is under serious charges in arbcom at this time. I myself have yet to close out any votes for deletion and was even told by another to concentrate on article creation and improvement as that is my primary strength anyway and the backlog was almost nothing. I do not think that Banes will use his admin tools a lot either as he tends to avoid controversy. But I think his demeanor and his willingness to learn and accept critism are important attributes that many of us admins (myself included at times) can learn from. I support his adminship because he is so decent and patient and kind. These might seem like poor reasons to support him, but in light of a previous choice I made, it is a much sounder rationale. Please do not be discouraged by his newbie like understanding of admin duties...he is a masterpiece in the making I assure you.--MONGO 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My original issue was with his lack of basic admin knowledge. I opposed for that, but it was "reluctant" as he is a good editor and showed promise. Then he goes and changes the ansers to his questions after voting without striking out his previous comments. This was unnacceptable on many levels, and I felt the need to requalify my objection as very strong. Sorry, but that will not change no matter the level of campaigning. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not campaigning. So what if he modified his comment without striking his old one. I have no idea why that would be unacceptable on many levels. Good lord, WP:AGF.--MONGO 05:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a very bad thing that he modified his comments: it makes those who voted based on specific answers seem like they haven't a clue what they're doing, and it's honselty just plain dishonest. And I'm sick of people spouting AGF when there is no lack of it - he changed his comments rather than striking them, which is a big enough deal for me, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I know him really well as I have had contact with him since he first registered it seems, so my perception may be biased. I'm sorry if you felt that I was challenging your vote, I haven't with anyone else, just was curious why you went from weak oppose to to strong oppose. You have every right to your vote of course, just was curious why the change. I don't think that Banes was trying to make anyone look stupid by changing his comment, as I said, and as we all are, he is learning as he goes.--MONGO 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ASCII ATTACK!

                           ___________
                           ___________
                           |           |
                           |     ______|
                           |    | |~--_
       ______   ____    ___`--__|_| ___\_    ______ ___ __
       |  =  )  //\ \   |  =  ) \ \// | |   | |~~| ||  \||
       |  =  ) //~~\ \  |  =  )  | |  | |___| |__| |||\  |
       ------ ---  ---- ------   ---  ------ ------ -- ---
                        ,--~~|       |    |
                        |     \_   _/     |
                         `,     ~-~     ,'
                           ~-_       _-~
                              -------
I can see this going bad, very very bad!! Oh well I tried! Mike (T C) 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
haha fixed now!!! stupid ~s! Mike (T C) 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Woot! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL thanks for the ascii art man!!! (Mike)

Leet

Hello, Jeffrey. While I understand the {{farc}} process is ongoing, I would like to submit Leet for peer review, so that it can eventually regain its featured article status. I have included many sources, and used them in the text. While some of what is in the article is based upon my own experience, much of what is presently in the article is based upon third party corroboration of what I already knew. I think you may find that the article, as it stands, is more complete than it was when it gained featured article status. This is something of a personal crusade of mine, both due to User:Netoholic's outright dismissal of the article, and the fact that this isn't the first time I've submitted an (pardon the lack of humility) outstanding article that nobody has paid attention to. I'm not normally one to ask for attention, but in this case, I think the article(s) merit it. Thanks for your time. Avriette 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not thrilled that the article was defeatured, I'm amenable to it going through peer review again. How do I go about doing that? Avriette 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
kthx. Avriette 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding Gmaxwell's 3RR violation (and it was a violation), see here. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

belated reply

Sorry, I missed your later followup re: Cyrillic letters. I've now replied at User_talk:Curps#eh.3F. -- Curps 09:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk campaign Spam

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

Hi, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for participating in my rfa, and for raising concerns which, I must admit, were completely valid. I will do my best to act on them, and work towards being a better editor. I would also like to sincerely apologise for removing my old answers without striking. It was an oversight which I should not have made. I did not intend to make you, or anybody else, look bad by doing that. Again, I'm sorry. If there is anything I can ever do for you dont hesitate to ask. All the best Banez

Playtpus FARC

Hi I was wondering why the Platypus FARC passed. I count 5 removes with valid and strong objections to 2 keeps and one week keep (on the proviso that work was done)?--nixie 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Farc less in terms of votes, than as a discussion (of course). Wackymacs main concerns were referencing and footnotes, as well as stylistic concerns. As far as references/footnotes, there was disagreement from Eric, John, and Mark, who felt that they were not too big of a problem. While there was some wishywashyness to the keep votes, overall it was enough to warrant keeping the article featured, not as a strait-up keep, but a default keep due to lack of consensus. But consensus isn't always used with discussions about featured content, so it was also partly a judgement call.
Raul is Featured Director, so in the end I'd reckon (I'd hope) he can overturn my decisions in Farc, so please feel free to ask for his input in this matter if you disagree with my decision.
Also, if you do go to Raul, just a heads up that I'll be away from my computer for the next eight or nine days, so I won't be able to give any more input into the matter (though, ultimately, I'd go along with whatever Raul decided here as it could have gone either way).
My sincere thanks for your time, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tove Jensen

Your edits here have been revereted to a large extent. Just so you know; I'm aware there were some issues, so I thought I'd drop you a line.

The lists have been re-added, and I'd say the picture, because of context, is pretty much pornographic. But is it fair game? I'd like to remove it, but not without a solid reason. --DanielCD 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just FYI, as I know this is a living person. May not be a problem, but better safe than sorry. --DanielCD 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no major concern about the credits, and the image is a bit much (though it looks like consensus has removed it for the time being). The big issue was the substance of the article, and the elements that Jensen has objected to remain excised (indeed, with the exception of the credits, it's fairly identical to my rewrite). I am fairly satisfied with its current state, but will be watching it to make sure it doesn't denegrate into the POV'd, unverifiable mess that was there previously. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Matter of Mr C. O'Brian, OM

Sir, The people of Lichtenstein are going to be MOST unhappy with your edit! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.166.171 (talk • contribs).

And I would be more than happy - no, extatic - if you can provide a source for your contribution. Once this happens, then Moleculo may get the OM he deserves and the people of Lichtestein may rejoice in the knowledge that the news of their Knight, International Superstar, and Northern European Political Zeitgeist Capturer shall spread unto all wiki lands!
Until that time, however, we have a factual encyclopedia to build. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine sir, your peremptory and supercilious remarks have no place in this realm of comedic enlightment! Leave your hubristic, hotdogger attitude with David Letterman. The exemplar of heroism that is CONAN finds your lack of faith disturbing, as do the fine people of Lichtenstein, I have no doubt!
     “If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.”- Einstein
Factual, indeed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.166.166 (talk • contribs).
Ah!, yes! Facts!
So, where are they?
If you provide me a link, I'll put the OM in there myself.
     “Turn this bitch loose!”- Pimpbot 5000
Otherwise, this conversation is for me to poop on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA, and I appreciate your kind words and confidence. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Push for Selectman, the Rfa, and all the other stuff...

Your Red Sox caption says it all man. I'm a darkhorse almost everywhere I go, yet life still hasn't been able to knock me out yet, despite a few good shots and probably a Standing Eight Count every now and then. I'm not going to preview, and if "Standing Eight Count" is a red link, i'm going to be very surprised. Karmafist 21:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you're fast...

I was still trying to find the right help page... :) Lokicarbis 02:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome

Anytime! --Kf4bdy 08:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

yes good job Kf4bdy, I was only able to beat you to one. pschemp | talk 08:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion: Garrett Gilchrist

Hey, um ...

You just deleted the article about me, which I copied and pasted from the Star Wars wiki, where it was already up.

I know it's vanity to put up an article about yourself ... but my name has come up in a few wikis - someone copied and pasted the Return of the Ewok article from Star Wars wiki, and mentions me, so I figured I might as well put up Deleted Magic as well, and my own entry, from the Star Wars Wiki. Hm. I didn't write my own entry, I would never have just put myself in for the hell of it, but I was mentioned in three separate places (relating to my fan restorations of Star Wars and The Thief and the Cobbler) so I figured why the hell not ...

Can I do this? Should I do this? Feels like I should.

Deleted Magic seems to have been deleted too! Magically! I can't find it in the delete log though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tygerbug (talk • contribs).

We have standards of notability here which you do not meet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You gotta laugh

I just refreshed newpages and the top two were:

  1. 23:36, March 1, 2006 Brian Peppers (meme) (15 bytes) . . Jeffrey O. Gustafson (deletedpage)
  2. 23:36, March 1, 2006 Brian Peppers (internet meme) (15 bytes) . . JzG ({{deletedpage}})
-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh, yah. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

To Jeff: Pay Attention! --Jeff

Hi, thanks for updating the DYK but I have several concerns. Please note that adminship is no license to update DYK out of process. For example, the article you created was not listed on Template talk:Did you know. The reason the suggestions need to be listed on this page is that other editors find potential problems. Just as the FA director does not update articles to FA status (he follows a process), so should be the case while updating DYK. Also, (a) you have not archived the old ones that made it to the DYK, (b) did not remove the suggestions that are already on the template, (c) did not change the next updation time and (d) did not inform the creators of the articles about DYK updation. Also, we typically follow an updation where in the suggestions from the articles created earlier make it to DYK (some sort of FIFO) because not adhering to this causes havoc especially on weekends (the days when POTD replaces DYK) - this also ensures that the suggestions are commented by admins. Next time you update DYK, please keep these in mind. If you need to reply, please do so on my talkpage. TIA, --Gurubrahma 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I screwed that up. What is the template for informing users? I could not find it after updating. Also, where is the archive of old dyks? There is something under "archive" on the talk page, but it hasn't been updated in a while. This wasn't a milicious ignorance of process (as your tone suggests), by the way, I just screwed up. It's not my usual area. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Template_talk:Did_you_know#Inform_these_users has the formats for informing the users and updating talkpages of articles - I will do it this time. The archive section is just 2 sections below - it is updated daily - the latest ones are on the top - you may have looked at the ones at the bottom which are very old. I thought my tone only suggested ignorance of process, not malice ;). With the general distrust for admins on the rise, I have always felt that we should never give a scope for other users to claim admin abuses against us and probably that was the reason I came across strongly. Anyways, next time you have an interesting suggestion from a new article, please add it to the template talk. Though we haven't interacted before, I've seen you in action on several pages on my watchlist, and you came across as a very mature user. I concede that updating DYK is very confusing, especially the first time - that is the reason only a couple of admins update it on a regular basis. --Gurubrahma 03:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it is a bit confusing. I've added you to my tools page - if I see something DYK worthy I'll contact you for guidance. Much thanks for your hard work maintaining DYK! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers. The process is all spelled out right there, too, on the talk page. How did I miss all of that? Sorry about the trouble (next time I really just have to pay more attention, natch). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, thanks a ton for the stones! Stars are just made of gas, stones are rock solid ;). Nixie also regularly updates DYK, but she seems to be on a wikibreak for the last one month. I'm working on simplifying the DYK updation and would let you know when I am done or if I need some help. TIA, --Gurubrahma 07:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw what you did..

and I was going to do the same. Except I thought what if wa all did and the next thing you know there's a Jason Gastrich sockpuppet with administrator rights. Ah, I suspect it's not even him and just a troll. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's kindof what I figure. Someone just making a joke. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Optical Disc Authoring Software - GEAR Video

Hi there Mr. Gustafson. Last night I attempted to write an article about GEAR Video, an optical disc authoring software program. This morning I found that you speedily deleted it. GEAR should be listed here... Category:Optical disc authoring ... but isn't. GEAR has been around longer than most of these other guys... 20 years. GEAR's software is installed on tens of millions of PCs around the world. I'm at a loss why you deleted the article. The only reason given was A4 ... this criteria doesn't exist anymore (merged with Articles 3... No content whatsoever. Any article whose contents consist only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This article described the software program in an unbiased manner... similar to the articles for the other programs listed in this category. Your feedback or assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. Tvaughan1

Greetings, Tvaughn1. A4 is speedy deletion criteria meaning "attempt to contact," or advertisement. The article you wrote read like an ad, had no wiki links and just one link coming in, and one external link going to the product's website. You are more than free to rewrite the article - rather than giving a laundry list of all the wonderful stuff it can do, give a brief overview along with its historical importance; include wikilinks, and links to some third party websites as sources. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

King Bill Winters

Can I ask why you are deleting the article of Bill Winters?

Please read WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. The next time you ad deleted material, you will be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesomeness Assistance!

I kinda inadvertently landed on the list of new pages, and there you were helping me out with speedy stuff. Sometimes it's easier to have admin rights methinks. Anyway, I did list a few on AFD, and have been on stub patrol lately too. Wikipedia is fun! - Bladeswin 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, especially Wikipedia:RC Patrol and, my specialty, New Page Patrol - what I feel is the most important thing admins, and any user with spare time, can do. Once again, good work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap! Two articles keep coming back! Telos(band) and Sac cheese! They kept remaking them, I kept retagging them. It seemed like I was looping through time... - Bladeswin 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I protected them from further recreation a couple minutes ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Woot woot! - Bladeswin 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy

why did you delete my page for Ocelot (band)? and if you're going to say A7 please tell me what that means...

Please read WP:BIO, WP:BAND, and WP:VAIN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Can you explain why the page youaretv was deleted? It is a neutral article on a social media website.

So? Your site is less than two months old. We have standards of notability. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the standard of notability? We have secured a partnership with the IFP and Firefox, of which we do not want to brag about. You have revver and other social media sites that are also very young, yet they maintain their listing. We have substantial credibility and if you took the time out to view the site you would understand that, rather than have a kneejerk reaction to deleting an abolutely fine article. It was written from a neutral standpoint and provided information for anyone interested in finding out more about us.

If you are notable (which you are not), then let someone else write about it. Writing about your own company is advertising. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum "for anyone interested in finding out more about" you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just posted an article about a website I created back in October of last year, thinking it might be of value. I understand your comment above about 'notability', 'advertising', etc. Is there a way I can retrieve the data I entered, or is it lost forever when you deleted it? - Thanks

I'll restore it momentarily. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It is in the history of the article. You cannot edit it, but you can view the wikisource. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Transparent deletion

I see you delete a lot of junk. This is good, we have a tremendous amount of junk coming in and somebody needs to deal with it. I wonder, though, if you'd consider using a transparent method on some of the borderline cases? You might find it useful. Friday (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Frank Caiazzo

I was wondering why you keep trying to delete this article. The subject has been a professional wrestler for several years, in several different federations in the United States and other countries, has won numorous championship titles, made the PWI 500 for the past four years, and a google search on his ring names "Uptown Frankie Capone" or "Frankie Capone" turn up over 1,000 hits. I would say he is "notable." MikeH411 11:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted FARCs

I asked a couple of times on FARC talk about undeleting the Giano nomination pages that you removed, and didn't get a reply. They were posted to FARC, and I got some flak on my Talk page concerning my comment about them. It's not a big deal in the greater schome of things, but since they generated commentary, I think they should be part of the record. Thanks. --Tsavage 07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an additional reason behind the deletion - in the event of a legitimate Farc, I do not want these as any kind of benchmark. Raul agreed with my decision as well. For the record though, as the text of each and every Farc was the same, I have undeleted one of them (here - oddly enough, the talk page had the same exact text as the Farc) . In my view, by the way, nothing you said was innapropriate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, great. It is...silly, I think. Oh, well. Thanks. --Tsavage 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with the deletion of those nominations (perhaps we should keep the one on the SicBar talk page?).
Apologies for stepping on your toes a little over This Charming Man but I thought the consensus on the FARC talk page was clear. I'm not sure we really need the poll - to my mind, the process is working fine: if the consensus is that it is "too recent" then it is. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No toes stepped on. All is good. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, good - because I do appreciate the good work that you do. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Urban Legends: Clear Channel

Understand that you probably objected to the use of the colon. Need a fix from you though, because it's important that the title of the article signify that what we are discussing is an urban legend or hoax, and not a real list. The Clear Channel list was not real, but merely an internet hoax. Thanks Jeff. Morton devonshire 06:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem if you make clear in the article what the deal is. The original title just didn't follow normal guidlines. If you want, another good title is The "Clear Channel September 11 banned songs list" urban legend. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you fix it for me -- I'm not quite the whiz that you are at this. Thanks. Morton devonshire 06:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. You just need to fix the links to avoid any necessary redirects. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Hilarius

Wow, that was quick! I was about to prod it with {{prod|While from a notable novel, a minor character should not have an article per [[WP:FICT]]}}. Frankly, when something's written like that one was it should disappear quickly. You might post something on that new user's page, though. Шизомби 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One step ahead of you again. Ha-har! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
D'OH! Wait, what was the last time? Anyway should he get a message, or just leave him to the welcome committee? Шизомби 07:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, check out what I wrote here a half hour ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
But wasn't it Steven Gerrard?
Wow, I'm on crack. Yeah, your right. I delete so much crap, its hard to keep track of them. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Giolou

First of all, thanks for your tireless efforts in deleting junk. You recently deleted Giolou (CSD:A8), but the contributor says she owns the copyright to the text and asked about it on Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. I haven't seen the text in question, so there might be other problems with it as well, but would you mind if I advised her to recreate it? She seems willing to learn and ask. Cheers. Henrik 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be hard to prove she owns it because google pulls many copies. If its encyclopdic, ask her to write an original article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Orlando Cole

Hi, I removed the speedy tag from it, since IMO the article does have so claim of notability and the article's linked from Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/34, meaning that someone believes there should be an article about the topic. I don't think putting up lists of encyclopedia topics then immediately deleting the articles when they're created without giving them a chance is the best course of action. If you disagree, please let me know, thanks. - Bobet 10:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Giolou affair

Like Kryptonite to Superman, WP:AGF must be my weakness! So, about Giolou. The new user asserted twice that they had written/owned the article so I believed them and restored it. I probably would not have restored if you had left a note on their talk page about why the article was speedied (WP:CSD instructs this). I should have more carefully read your excellent deletion edit summary.--Commander Keane 11:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I probably should have put the google search link in the original delete summary instead of just A8. And as for notifying every user of every deleted article, while it would be ideal, I guess, it just isn't practical... you wouldn't believe the amount of crap I sift through on Newpage patrol, and notifying everybody who contributes the truckfulls of crap that is dumped here would slow me down to a crawl. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Isidor deletion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isidor

4 deletes, 3 keeps -- how is this a consensus for deletion? Monicasdude 14:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I am also wondering that. --Grocer 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies: That should have been no consensus: I have reversed my decision. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Honda-Tech prod

I removed your prod from Honda-Tech because it seems notable enough to me based on the Alexa ranking, the number of users claimed in the forum, the apparent activity level, the contents of google results (even if the number of results is misleading due to spam) etc. Please feel free to add it to AfD if you still feel it's non-notable. --Fuzzie (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[Userbox removed]

Poker rake

Jeffrey, I wrote the article on Poker Rake and saw that you have categorised it as needing a cleanup. I'm very happy to do whatever is required but I'm afraid that it is a very broad categorisation leaving a lot of open possibilities. Can you give me some more direction? I'm a newbie to Wikipedia but would like to contribute more and could certainly use any pointers.

All the Best, MickyTheFIsh

Hi MickyTheFish! Head on over to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The first thing you need, though, is some Wikilinks, like you have done with the word [[poker]]. You need to have an opening paragraph (just remove the header from your first paragraph), and consolidate some of the choppier paragraphs. The FAQ section will need to go, but you can easily rewrite the material therein as prose rather than FAQs. Cut back on the external links, too. Overall, it is a very good job for one's first article, and the cleanup tasks are relatively minor. What I discovered early on, was that the more articles I read, the better I understood what made a good article. If you come accross an article that looks good, hit the edit button to see how it was done, and mimic that. Feel free to ask if you need anything else! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain if this is the proper place to ask some more questions so feel free to redirect or delete. I've read through most of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and paid particular attention to the Wikilinks section but cannot find an answer to my question...as an example, if I want to link "hand" (as in "poker hand") which appears as "Poker (Hand)" in Wikipedia without explicitly having to add "poker" in the visible text, what is the html syntax?

First, write the proper name of the article, in this case Hand (poker). Put brackets around it. This creates a wikilink, so that [[Hand (poker)]] reads as: Hand (poker). Now if you want to link to an article using a different word than the title, you need to use this: | . It is located as the shift part of the backslash (\) key on may keyboards. Insert the | before the closing brackets, followed immidiately by whichever word you want to appear (no space). Thus [[Hand (poker)|Hand]] appears as "Hand" linking to "Hand (poker)". Like I said, just read a bunch of good articles, and look at the source: this stuff will catch on quickly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I notice that the Manual of Style suggests sensible linking and not complete/comprehensive linking. Would it be appropriate to link terms once or perhaps twice as they are introduced in the article? Similar to the introduction of acronyms?. Thanks in advance MickyTheFIsh 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Try to just link the first occurance of a word. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry to add my laundry list here, but I'm new to this and there are a great deal of technical issues and etiquette to master). I’ve noticed that you have re-titled the article from “Poker Rake (The Rake)” to “Poker rake”. Given numerous other articles with titles such as “Pot (Poker)” or “House (Poker)” wouldn’t it make more sense to use “Rake (Poker)”?

If agreed, how can I make those changes? MickyTheFIsh 12:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll have this capability yet, but you use the move button. I've gone and done it for you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

About me...

Whether I'm notable enough is up to others... I'm not about to write one about myself, tho - that would really be bad... :) TheRealFennShysa 15:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, that's not me in the photo you used... Bob Bean has always been our Vader - I only did the voice... TheRealFennShysa 15:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is marked by you NPOV, but there's no specifics on the discussion page. What specifically were you referring to? Daemon8666 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Added. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

multiple blocks

The shorter block will be the active one. When a unblock threshold is reached it unblocks and doesn't know about other blocks. I don't really know if people think it's a bug or not but I have seen conversation about maybe having a "block conflict" message. I don't know if there's actual work being done on that though. If you'd like to make that block longer feel free...I don't feel strong one way or another...later! Rx StrangeLove 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reprodding

Please do not restore prod tags. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions only. As the notice itself says, removing the tag is the correct way of objecting to the deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#What this process is NOT for. NickelShoe 06:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry you were offended, the "ffs" was said with a grin, not with an angry tone! Regarding the post against Spoo for front page on April 1st. Hey, I'm a big Star Wars fan (aren't we all) but I'd vote against an article on say Midochlorians or whatever. Again, apologies. --PopUpPirate 01:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • EDIT - Had a rethink, you had a valid point, it LOOKED like an angry post from me, but wasn't (and yep it perhaps violated my "be civil" stance, lol), I've toned it down, but retained my point! Take care. --PopUpPirate 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:FARC

Just happened to be around. I wonder which article will be next in the crosshairs? Certain people may find Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations a helpful place to find people's pressure points. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't want to jump to Point accusations, of course (AGF and all), but the timing was a bit... suspect. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he didn't know; perhaps he did.

Anyway, I guess the articles "of interest" are Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media. I'm not sure whether the problem is perceived to be anything fictional, or just anything vaguely "popular", or "minority interest", but what about Batman? Blade Runner? Captain Marvel (DC Comics)? Dalek? Doctor Who? Felix the Cat? The Quatermass Experiment? Quatermass and the Pit? Superman? TARDIS? And once we have done them, there is the whole of music (all those nasty popular Beatles songs), and philosophy (Omnipotence paradox?), and sport and games (3D Monster Maze? Rock, Paper, Scissors?), and culture and society (Exploding whale? Japanese toilet?) - each one is a load of dingoes kidneys, of course... -- ALoan (Talk) 02:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The attitude really does smack of some misplaced elitism, failing to realize that a wiki is the last place for elitism. Point indeed... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a place for elitism, of course - but objecting to these fine articles is the wrong sort of elitism. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm butting in on a private Talk page chat (the page auto-added to my watchlist from other business). Anyhow, I don't think it is at all a matter of subject category, it's a matter of article quality, as it should be. I'm don't know if there was anything "behind" Spoo FARC, but in general, a lot of pop culture topics have common characteristics when brought to FAC that make them...visible. Unusually strong, vigorous, argumentative, at-all-costs support, by definition poor sources (media outlets, fan pages, this may be a function of newness of the topic, but that doesn't make the sources less...poor), and fairly atrocious writing which is at times quite obviously intended to try to meet FA requirements more than anything else (examine the stream of "fixes", where material is added on just so someone would strike, or to be able to argue a fix) — these things tend not to make for good articles. Any topic can be well-done, or poorly done. I think that's really the "true" attitude that averages among editors who might review against the kind of subjects you seem to be trying to categorize. --Tsavage 21:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

First, please read the Spoo FAC - there really aren't that many B5 fans out there, and the ones who supported the FAC were many Wikipedia senior editors, who supported not because it was a B5 article, but because it was a good article. "Fairly atrocious writing..." I worked with User:Tony1 extensively on the prose of this article, so that even he changed his vote from "Strong Oppose." As for the sources, please stop and read the ongoing Farc - anyone with a cool head will see that these aren't just fannish nonsense, but authoritative, (and more inportantly) official, references. To attempt to punnish Spoo just because every other media article lacks (as TA almost openly admits) really does border on WP:POINT.

Also "the kind of subjects you seem to be trying to categorize..." Um, what? I am not trying to categorize a thing. My involvement with this mess is that I (rightfully) speedied the Balbasaur Farc as a violation of Farc guidlines. Then out of nowhere, the editors behind the Balbasaur opposition Farc an article I wrote (just a coincidence, of course). I have no opinion on Balbasaur, think that media articles have every right to be featured, and more or less aggree that we need more featured articles in science subjects. I was dragged into this mess. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I sometimes feel that way... I was making a well-intentioned comment. I didn't vote against Spoo (I don't think I did), and I wasn't criticizing it whatsoever, it just seemed this thread was sparked by the Spoo nom, which is why I mentioned it. My comment mainly concerned the "wrong sort" of "elitism", and the idea of editors targetting classes of FA for bad reasons... If you read it from maybe a less defensive posture, you'll see that I was just supplying possibly relevant input. And I was speaking to the thread, which was two people, not directly to you. ("This mess" seems to be the process in action, no, and I'm increasingly in a defensive mode myself as people rapidly take sides and attack each other, no matter how politely.) --Tsavage 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, then, for any misunderstandings. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks. That's kind of civilized. If you're interested, I did, courtesy of Aloan, comment on Spoo. I've copied it so you won't pop more blood vessels by having to view the Bulbasuar document it is part of: Spoo is an entirely differenct article from Bulbasaur. Not knowing spoo from...Adam, I can read the article and come out of it quite well versed in spoo. The concept of "food" being quite clear in advance helps. And that's all there is to it, "fictional food".[[13] It goes on, but about, B. And that's about where I stand on that one... Later on... --Tsavage 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivanova

I thought this was common knowledge, see for example: http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/014.html (under "JMS speaks")

Thanks :)

Blocking of User:Ivan Kricancic

Please unblock him, the only pages he has vandalised are those of myself and a friend of ours, User:MetallicaGuy2.

It was only in jest. --robz0r 13:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is not some personal playground of yours. Additionally, if he does not provide any edits to the encyclopedia (you know, the thingee that we are trying to write here), and continues with nonsense contributions and vandalism, then he will simply be permablocked. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Disregard my previous comments, please maintain a watch on the userpage of User:Ivan Kricancic. The page contains personal attacks against people which you may want to evaluate and act upon. I am concerned about the trouble that may arise from the page as it has been circulating around school. I have asked him to take it down, but he refuses. --robz0r 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ant colony

I saw that you participated in the discussion regarding the verfiability of some of the content in Ant colony. I've provided a source for each claim in the paragraph that was removed. Who'd have thought it was true? ;) Let me know if there's any more problems. — Rebelguys2 talk 13:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Alpha269

Hi just wanted to point out two things to make it clear: 1) I never ever ever once told this user I was an admin. 2) I never told him to open a RFC over the deletion review, but rather told him if he felt he was being wronged. I should have made it more clear to him by what I mean. I never meant it with wronging towards the article, but rather to him self. Hes accused many many editors of wronging him. If i was wrong to say that to him I appoligise, but honestly I don't know what else to tell this guy, hes convinced that the wikipedia community is somehow in coohootz. Mike (T C) 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, you have done nothing wrong. Indeed, I have blocked Alpha for disruption, so all is good for now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to think that Jbamb is the same person as Alpha269, would blocking Alpha269 also block any other users of that IP address? Just seems fishy that Alpha pops up in Jbamb's AfD to fight for it, then when he gets banned, Jbamb gets into the converation. Mike (T C) 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they are the same. I'm looking to request a checkuser on them. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I just put a checkuser on with a half ass description of why I want one. Feel free to add to it, I am going to add most of the diffs to support my claim later tonight. Thanks a lot, and sorry for opening this can-o-worms on the community, i feel half responsible. Mike (T C) 03:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Followed up - still need to plug in difs, though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll add them later tonight, thanks! Mike (T C) 04:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a few to the RFCU, I think we should post the NYT's AfD to BJAODN it is so ridiclious and actually funny. Mike (T C) 04:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Nah, it's just sad rather than funny. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the links as well, I'm a little sick with the flu (well a lot) and didnt even notice i didnt wikify it at all. Mike (T C) 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I don't think that user:Jbamb has engaged in sock puppetry. But I do think that User:Alpha269 is a sock of somebody, and probably the same editor who, using various 24... IPs, has been adding and edit warring Bambenek's name into several articles, (Paleoconservatism, lists of notable collegians and townspeople, etc). My guess is that it is a friend or relative of Bambenek's, not the man himself. In any case, I'm quite sure that the person is smart enough to know how to swap IPs, so Checkuser wouldn't be able to indicate anything. -Will Beback 07:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the process however, read Jbamb's reply to our RFCU, he said he'll acept a perm ban if he is Alpha if me and Jeff are perm banned if he is not. Mike (T C) 00:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Only people confident of the outcome make deals like that. Will Beback 00:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
So he is either a) not the same person or b) great at hiding his tracks? A lot more than IP addresses are taken into account when a checkuser is performed. Mike (T C) 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
My guess is both A and B are true. Bambenek is a computer security expert, so he should have an intimate knowledge of IPs and the traces they leave. However I believe that "Alpha" is more likely a fan of his, a friend or relation. More likely a "meat puppet" than a "sock puppet". However it's always possible that checkuser will find something unexpected. I think it is likely that Alpha will have used some of the IPs that have been promoting Bambanek into articles, but since that isn't in your reqeest we might not hear about it. If you think the sock puppetry angle is really siginificant we can compile a list of involved IP addresses. -Will Beback 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The RFCU came back 90% likely, they use the same IP addresses, I honestly didn't see that comeing after reading what Will said lol. Mike (T C) 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Me neither. I guess I hope for the best. Thanks to both of you for taking the time and energy to root out this disrupter. -Will Beback 21:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

anon IPs of Young_Zaphod

Hi, I noticed (unless I'm reading it wrong) that someone you blocked a few days ago for 48 hours started editing on another IP of theirs less than 48 hours later (45 hours and 20 minutes).

17:01, 16 March 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson blocked "67.165.85.111 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism) [14]

[15] edit at 14:21, 18 March 2006

The IP 67.165.85.111 has been known to edit with multiple IP's in the 151.201.*.* range as shown in [16]. In his defense, none of his other socks seem to have edited anything for a while, and this is apparently his first edit in 45:20, so he might have assumed it was over with and didn't realize that it was a few hours short still (as far as I can tell, 67.165.85.111 is a home IP, 151.201.*.* is a local computer lab). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The block I enacted was unrelated to Young Zaphod's activities - that was just some IP I stumbled upon on RC patrol. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I figured, I just didn't know if vandalism blocks are applicable to just the current IP or to the person doing the vandalism, so figured I should point it out. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Smurrayinchester's RFA

Thank you!
Enlarge
Thank you!

Thank you for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 100/1/0. Thanks for your vote! If you have any comments, please say so here. --smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jbamb's block

Sorry aobut posting to AN/i, didn't know you already blocked and figured another admin might want to do the dirty work anyways considering the ridiclious statements by him. Thanks for your help. Mike (T C) 06:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Brandt

Hey, quite outside any difference of opinion were having on the Spoo FARC, I notice that Brandt, in addition to thinking im the scum of the earth, also doesn't like you very much. I'd appreciate it if you could add your account with him to my User:AKMask/Brandt sub-page. Just make a new section or whatever you wish. -Mask 01:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You take offense.

I'll probably be reverted if I try to make any edits myself (if Jeffrey O. Gustafson's overzealous defensiveness are any indication of the editing atmosphere there)...

1) I have made a grand total of one (1) minor edit to Joan of Arc, and last actively tried to effect change via the talk page fifteen months ago. 2) "The editing atmosphere" of which you unknowingly attempt to speak took one of Wikipedia's worst articles into one of our best. Indeed, I'd reckon that Durova and the rest would be entirely receptive to your suggestions, if their extraordinary track record are any barometer. Such blind accusations are, at the very least, entirely uncalled for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's good. I'm delighted to hear that my early fears were unwarranted; perhaps I'll give a shot to editing some bits of the article, if I have the time. But my comments were not "blind accusations", they were an explanation of why I wasn't editing the article myself: because if the article inspired such a patriotic fervor (really, the best on Wikipedia? asking to feature it the very next day, just to spite me and my concerns?) over a simple and ordinary quality evaluation, I didn't want to get any further embroiled in the "IT'S ALREADY PERFECT LEAVE IT BE!" mindset; I've already had to deal with that too many times in the past, on much worse-quality articles (human), so perhaps I was a bit paranoid, and I certainly jumped the gun in my analysis, based solely on your comments and the lead section of the article. Thanks for clearing the air there. -Silence 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yet again you make blind judgements: whatever anyone else said had absolutely nothing to do with my statement that it needed to be main page'd ASAP, as I was intending to say so no matter what. "Just to spite me and my concerns" assumes I even care enough about what you or anyone thinks of the article (which I had nothing to do with) or me, and also assumes that I make random vindictive comments (both innacurate). I don't care about the fact that you disagree with the article: I do care when people randomly accuse me of shit I didn't do, and without the slightest bit of evidence to boot. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Image:WikiThanks.png Hi Jeffrey! STRONGEST POSSIBLE THANKS for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Thank you very much for the compliments you've paid to this article. As Wikipedia guidelines say, there is no perfect article. If you know a way to make it better then please do. Durova 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I comment

Please note the comment you made there is misleading - I was simply not logged in at the time GarethNelson 11:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So fix it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking AOL - 195.93.21.130.

Hi - Doktorbuk here. Was just about to tidy up the 2006 Eurovision Song Contest article but apparantly I have been caught up in some AOL IP blocking damage. How long is the block likely to be active, just so I can get on with other things before coming back!

Cheers

Líam P doktorb | words 13:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahoy. I cannot find any blocks on 195.93.21.130. That you were able to leave a message with me means that you should be able to edit elsewhere. There may have been a glitch on that article, but you are not blocked, and the article is not protected. Just try again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Just tried again, editing the France section specifically. An Autoblock on a user due to vandalism..your name against it.. I think I've come up against this before but memory is hazy...doktorb | words 13:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to need an exact IP. If it's 195.93.21.130 again, I honestly don't know what to say. This is additionally weird because 1) You are able to edit here, which you shouldn't be able to do if you were autoblocked, and 2) No autoblock has appeared at the Special:Ipblocklist. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
This is most odd. The France section doesn't like me, but the article as a whole does. So, who knows, file under "one of those things", 'coz I'm baffled... :) Cheers for the swift replies and action on this too =) doktorb | words 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Copwatch deletion

Why did you delete the Copwatch article? It is not appropriate to simply delete an article without commenting on the discussion page first. I will be discussing this issue with admin. Mycota 18:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1)I am an admin, so I guess you were only re-stating the obvious, and 2) the article has been restored and reverted to the more complete version. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I didn't realize that an admin could simply delete without any comment or notice. Thank you for putting the article on AfD so that we can go through the proper consensus process. I honestly thought that there had been some kind of serious vandalism since there wasn't even a record of deletion. Mycota 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ives Farc

I understand your rationale for moving that discussion to the talk page, however I feel that Hyacinth's comment: " It appears that the article has been improved, possibly to featured article status, because of this listing, and I don't see what is wrong with that." is relevant to the matter at hand. Since I have a vested interest (I added the inline cites) I'd rather not change it myself, but I'm wondering if you would look at it. Thanks, Makemi 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You may change it back if you wish - as I will be closing the FARC anyway (it's what I do), I'm aware of the comment and will take it into account if I need to make a decision (i.e. if consensus isn't clear). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, that's fine then. Thanks, Makemi 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

RfB policy

Hi Jeffrey. You made a comment in Essjay's RfB that you are unilaterally opposing all RfB nominations. While you're certainly entitled to oppose for any reason at all (listed or not), would you be willing to list the criteria under which you might eventually support a nomination? Otherwise it seems a bit weird to explicitly oppose something you're never going to support. Besides, the whole mess with Boothy443 was silly and unecessary, and I'd hate to see a repeat (even if unintentionally). Thanks! --Alan Au 19:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I would have opposed Essjay, regardless of my current RfB standards. Second, and to the point, my RfB voting is not blanket unilateral opposition ala Boothy/Massiveego (the comparison is patently obsurd if not hyperbolic). Those familiar with RfB know what my specific standards are, especially the nominees, because I've repeated said standards for months... and when there are four RfB's back to back, I am not going to just say the same things over and over: I expect people to have an attention span longer than a day (well, there goes that). As for "never going to support" - that is an equally absurd shot in the dark as I have never said nor even hinted at such patent nonsense; indeed, if you look one whole RfB down the pipeline, you'll see that I clearly indicate the opposite. Wow. Please do your homework before grossly mischaracterizing my intentions. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I wasn't trying get you riled up. A simple "please check my RfB contribution history" on my talk page would have been fine. That said, you have opposed the last several RfB nominations (ongoing, successful, and unsuccessful). If they list other entries elsewhere, I'm not aware of them. Also, I didn't say that you were always going to oppose, just that a pattern without an explanation might be misconstrued as WP:POINT. Apparently, I wasn't clear and ended up getting bitten for it. --Alan Au 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

B5

Don't worry: I saw the quote in a very particular, and highly unusual, set of circumstances and it was all too easy to misinterpret it, irritated as I was at the time. No harm done, and thanks for the note. -Splashtalk 12:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

welcoming

Shouldn't welcome templates be substituted per WP:SUBST? I did so with User talk:TimothyHorrigan and User talk:SaJaD, assuming that you forgot (as I often do) to subst. Also, would you consider using a more personalized welcome message that references the user's contributions, as I did with User talk:Berque? Thanks, TheJabberwock 01:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I usually use Subst:. Forgot this time around. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Marie Ljalková

I saw, and removed the speedy tag as it's just possible that she may qualify as notable. There are only 160 hits on google for her. Although one of those was a picture at the commons. If you want put it up for an AfD that would be fine. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

range block

What actual range of IPs would you like to see blocked?Gator (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoo

Requested cites:

Spears, RA. Slang and Euphemism: A Dictionary of Oaths, Curses, Insults, Sexual Slang and Metaphor, Racial Slurs, Drug Talk, Homosexual Lingo, and Related Matters. Signet Book; Reissue edition (September 1991). ISBN: 0451165543

I'm sure it's in the Oxford slang dictionary, too.

F Aranovich, P Munro. UCLA slang: a dictionary of slang words and expressions used at UCLA. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8 (1989).

I was struck that the whole article had a sort of subtext that this meaning is why it's so funny to some readers as a veiled reference, but no one mentioned the reason. Jokestress 05:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

kaleb marshall

please do not delete my article titled kaleb marshall. i am not kaleb. although i do know him, i am not creating it for fun or as a joke. kaleb marshall is a professional photographer that has photographed bands such as job for a coboy and hawthorne heights. he is also in the initial stages of creating a documentary on the underground hip-hop and punk scene. this article was meant to display some of his work and accomplishments, it is not a joke. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaleb1989 (talk • contribs).

Nice username, Kaleb. Second, he/you are not notable enough for an entry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed you proposed the M.P. Birla Foundation article for deletion just three minutes after I created it. The reason you gave was "nn, possible spam". Please tell me on what basis you decided this foundation is not notable. I can assure you the article is not spam. The Birla family is very significant in India, a bit like Gates in the U.S. (I've never even been to India but I've heard of them.) --Smithfarm 10:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Then remove the prod tag. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Deleted article

Hello. My article roachinator was deleted within ten minutes of being created. That was the first article I have contributed, and I did so because I felt that there was some lack of knowledge about this type of thing. It does have a personal interest aspect, I admit, but this is a real thing also and there is no article that depicts it. I commend your speed as a moderator, but I'd like just an explanation as to why you decided to delete it. It did not seem to me to be terribly different from other cannabis paraphernalia articles which already exist. You gave a reason (A7 OR), and I'm sorry but I cannot find what that means. --Dramisphere 11:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A google search showed almost no mention of this specific device, showing (and being proven by "personal interest" above) that this is Original Research. Please read WP:NOR. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, that's a good reason. It is my error that I didn't acknowledge that rule. I will put this information on my own website instead of here.
And thank you. By the way, the article was rather well written - you might want to try your hand at Requested articles or check out the Wikipedia:Article improvement drive. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I may do that. You probably want to delete Image:Roachinator.jpeg as well. Hey, why don't we make a deal: If I complete 1,000 requested articles, I get to have my roachinator article uploaded no questions asked. :)
Heh, if you do that, I'll vote for you for admin! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mafiag/monobook.css

Ah, I get it now. You can move to CSS pages, but only if you're an administrator. That makes sense. Sorry for the mess I made moving it to the wrong place -- Gurch 14:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? No, any experienced editor can move any unlocked page. The only reason I moved that was because it was created in the article namespace when it should have been in the user namespace. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Work4world?

Has this page Work4world have any relation to the page Wfw that you have deleted twice?--Blue520 15:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry I just saw you have deleted it, I guess the answer was yes.--Blue520 15:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey, there is something called Freedom of Speech that you probably do not understand. Your arrogance astonish me and l would not be surprised if you do not grasp the concept of Work-For-the-World. You might assume yourself to be an online policeman but other people have got to have a say in a public domain. If you cannot handle authourity correctly, you would eventually have to be removed as an administrator.

What you have considered to be an advertisement is strictly information directed towards the cause and only people who understand would eventually respond. That is the way it works. Read the posted message again and you would notice that it is not selling or intend to sell anything directly through Wikipedia. The posted information did not name any products or prices!!! So back off or get a life.

Ah, thank you. You just made my point: "directed towards the cause and only people who understand would eventually respond." Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. More importantly, per our speedy deletion criteria (A4), you just (even further) verified the legitimacy of my deletion. As for the cries that every single admin gets (CENSORSHIP!), Wikipedia is neither a democracy, nor is it the open internet. It ain't censorship, its policy. My warning stands, good day. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pulse

In response to your comment [17] regarding pulse and AfD. Actually, the answer is no. I think we should do articles on dead people too. Things such as schools, malls and important civic organizations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copwatch) are also fine. -- JJay 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. Cough. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

spoo

Spoo is featured on the Main page today. Quite an awesome article indeed. Congrats! deeptrivia (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers, thank you. This is my first featured article on the Main Page and I've been gaurding it like a hawk for eighteen hours now, doing Newpage patrol to kill time, and boy am I tired. It was a year ago this month that I wrote that article, and seing it on the main page is sure swell. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


My pages

If you don't like me puting my pages here then tell me where I can put them, Must I make My own Wiki like http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Main_Page or what!

Reptileus 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anywhere but here, please. This is not your personal webspace. This is an encyclopedia. Get a myspace.com account like everybody else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me re-Farce What i just siad " How do you get a Wiki Page like http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Main_Page and if not tell me where I can make A page like it for Free

Ah, Wikicities. www.wikicities.com --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pyogenesis deletion

Respectfully, I would inquire as to why Jeffrey O. Gustafson may have deigned to delete my Pyogenesis page? I spent a considerable amount of time on it. Oakevin (a mere newbie)

'Tis Back. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Following its original deletion (by a different user), I had made changes to show the influence/importance of the band. Now, since you have restored it, I have made another minor change, thus still further endeavouring to improve same. Please review and provide any comments here at your earliest convenience. Though not strictly required by Wiki policy, would you second my nomination to have it removed from "proposed deletion"? Oakevin: o-a 20:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It is respectfully submitted that the band Pyogenesis is notable because it meets each of the following criteria, among others: (i) the band has gone on international concert tours, and national concert tours in at least one large or medium-sized country, namely, Germany and Austria, among others; (ii) the band has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels – see the Amazon website through the link in the Pyogenesis wiki article; (iii) the band has been featured in the non-trivial published work CMJ New Music Monthly – a reliable and reputable source in the music industry; and (iv) the band had a seminal influence on the development of the hard house music scene and rave culture of the late 90s. Please support my nomination for removal of the page from deletion. Oakevin (newbie step after newbie step): o-a 20:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

spoo on the main page

I think it's absolutely excellent that Spoo is on the main page. Great job getting it up to feature status!! Cheers to you from a Babylon 5 fan. :) --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Doh je! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I love google: How 'bout this: 多謝 !!! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Hey, I just noticed some edits to your talk and found this. I blocked the user indefinitely as a sockpuppet, probably as a sock of the same user. I don't know the whole history, so I wasn't sure of any further steps to take, as far as ArbCom or what not might be concerned. Cheers, Makemi 04:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoo, dilly. Yeah, the Mr. Happydeath troll is a fellow named Joseph Allen Wood who, in like, Novemember tried to create a vanity page which I speedied (his username was his real name), plus some AfD'd political stuff. He created a bunch of sockpuppets and when on an attack spree against me and a couple of others. Then, yesterday, I'm on newpage patrol for like, 14 hours, and what pops up? Joseph A. Wood. Good stuff. User:Franklinalexander is most definitely him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User undeletion request

Just thought I'd alert you to fact that Helier Robinson has requested undeletion of the page Leibniz-Russell theory of perception which you speedied yesterday. I've put it in his user space. David | Talk 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate your kind words, and also the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why I am loved

Mr. Gustafson: congratulations that you have the admin bit set on your Wikipedia account. I noticed that you spend a lot of time reverting the work of others and very little time talk about what you are doing. I have noticed that your actual article content on Wikipedia has to do with fiction. The reason that I created Elizabeth Morgan is because it is non-fiction and might possibly be about something important. You see, in a Democracy, it is important not only to give each Citizen their turn to speak and their turn to vote, but it is also very important to hold priviledged people (like elected officials, policemen, licensed professionals and pretty females) accountable for what they do because they have more power than the common person. Have you noticed that while you do a lot of taking away of other people's turn by erasing their work on articles or their contributions on Talk pages and noticeboards, few people trying to erase yours words? Do you think it is because they are afraid of your or your admin bit? If you do, then you are a disappointment to me. I personally feel that other people leave your words on the talk pages because they find it in themselves to respsect you as a person, despite the poor example you set. Are you perhaps and oldest child or an only child? You really should try a little introspection and see if you are doing a little too much taking away of other people's turn. -- 71.139.186.72 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is an encyclopedia. The tireless work of Jeffrey (and others) in patrolling newpages is hard, thankless work, but completely essential to Wikipedia. If we didn't have editors cutting down the flood of articles that should never be in an encyclopedia, but that people continually create, Wikipedia would soon become completely unusable. Sometimes mistakes are made, but your personal attacks on a hardworking Wikipedia editor are completely unacceptable. In the long run, comments like yours are what drive away Wikipedias most valued and productive editors, as they hear much complaining and little well deserved praise. Henrik 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
First, Henrik, thank you. Second: Dear Anon, I have never edited / deleted / heard of the Elizabeth Morgan article. Your best bud, El Jeff. P.S. What Henrik Said. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoo!

I just spent, over the past two days, several hours going through my Beetle Bailey archives for the specific strip that uses "SPOO!" as an exclamation prior to any known JMS usage. I found it. The strip in question (Sunday, April 18, 1971) predates JMS's "He-Man" usage by over a decade. And the reference to it is now back in the article, footnoted in exhaustive detail (down to the ISBN of the book [long out of print, but probably not impossible to find] in which it is reprinted).

Satisfied?

James H. H. Lampert

Found on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages

Man, somebody really doesn't like you:

Jeffrxy O. Gxstafson

(Created by Wollop (talk • contribs), by the way.)

--Calton | Talk 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was I, exploiting a defect in the mediawiki software. If you look at the history (I don't want to spill the WP:BEANS), you will see how easy it is to get an article into the main namespace, almost undetected. The article did not appear on Special:Newpages, and went undetected on two other logs. I filed a bug, but nobody seems to have attempted to bother to fix it. The potential for abuse is incredibly high - this lasted in the article space for a week and a half before someone stumbled upon it (you).
There are people out there who have said far worse about me here, actually - it just comes with the job, unfortunately. Thanks for the heads up, and good work, by the way (although, that goes without saying for you). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Republic of New Hampshire

I only just created this page the other day. I've posted a number of references to the state's website justifying my arguments, and if I have time available this week I'll be heading down to Concord to do some more research in the state archives. I'd appreciate a bit of leeway on getting the work together on this. I have another life and am trying to produce as high quality a page as possible, but cannot do it all at once. Please bear with me.Citizenposse 04:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you cannot immidiately add proof of what you add, then it cannot be added. You are welcome to try again when you have more sources for your information. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that. I've added as much as I can find online, four sources some of which are on the state's own websites, so I think I've proven my case pretty well so far. I will try to get to the state archives this week. I would appreciate it if you would not treat RofNH with a double standard that is not being applied to Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii. I was under the impression that wikipedia was about fairness and openness, not engaging in repression of history, which some people seem to be doing here.Citizenposse 00:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the preported "Republic of New Hampshire" to Republic of Texas or Republic of Hawaii is like comparing apples and wildabeasts. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me RFA 33⅓

Thank you for your support during my third RFA (and priors). The self-nomination was successful, with an unexpected number of participants from all over. If you ever need anything, are feeling snackish, or would just like to chat, please feel free to visit me on my talk page; I never sleep. 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Drifting links

May I inquire as to the reason behind your removal of so many of the links from the Drifting (motorsport) page? While it was obvious that the links needed to be removed, to remove so many without any apparent rationale and without consideration probably was not the right way to go about things. Also, marking it as a minor edit may not have been the greatest of ideas either as it could be considered to go against wikipedia's minor edits guidelines. Most importantly I wanted to let you know that some of the links you removed were the most important ones (links to professional leagues). --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoth: "While it was obvious that the links needed to be removed..." Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to restate, the intended phrasing was "... that many of the links..." Unfortunately I am a horrible typist and just as bad at writing in general. To remove all the links that were removed so indescriminately sets what I must say is a very unfortunate example on how one should deal with situations on Wikipedia. Lately we've had far too much indiscriminate "problem solving" that has resulted in quite a few issues.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Commedia dell'arte

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. You protected this about two weeks ago. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough to unprotect it now. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general? CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. Thanks. -Splashtalk 21:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you reversing my edits?

You have removed my recent image of the vulva from the article vulva because you have assumed it has questionable copyright. You also attempted to remove another of my images "jeans_cameltoe" for the same reason until another admin prevented you from doing so.

I am making these edits in good faith because I believe the two images to be far superior to the ones already in the articles and illustrate the point more clearly. I am not a vandal and was the photographer of both images. Admittedly there were two images I uploaded from the web as I did not fully appreciate the copyright situation and so I accept you are doing your job.

However, I take exception to the removal of my image from the vulva when it enhanced the article and is perfectly legal! I think Wikipedia is excellent and I want to contribute positively, so please allow me to. Apologies, I have just found that it was "Nandesuka" who did that, but I think you have removed others.

Thank you Bobble2 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Ahoy. First, as you have said, your frustrations over your Vulva edits weren't reversed by me. In fact, I have never edited the page. Second, I did not attempt to "remove" Image:Jeans cameltoe.jpg, I did remove it, and image deletions cannot be "reversed" or somehow prevented after the fact by another admin. I did delete a couple of your images per policy after you willfully and intentionally uploaded a copyrighted image (specifically the cropped Tove Jensen picture, which is owned by the Color Climax Corporation of Copenhagen), and then claimed it as your own by putting a GFDL tag on it. This made every single upload you have ever made suspect. You are welcome to continue uploading images that you own, just keep in mind that uploading them and releasing them under the GFDL means anyone can use them (negating any commercial value in the images). But if you upload images that you do not own the rights to and/or willfully misrepresent the copyright status of an image again, you will be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey

User talk:Lady Jane Grey. Appears to be hit by an autoblock from one of your blocks, can you take a look? Cheers,--Commander Keane 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, the IP was unblocked (details at User talk:Lady Jane Grey), so no need for your intervention.--Commander Keane 23:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Mediation Request

I'm taking Fred Moss to mediation, and am thus required to put

{{RFM-Request}}

on your talk page. 83.146.55.85 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

RFM is the wrong place. You need to go through the steps put forward in the dispute resolution process before an RFM can go forward. You have not done so. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly clear that some clique of admins has some sort of grudge against either me or the article; this should lead to quicker results. 83.146.55.85 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, of course, The Cabal. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Another Hamish Ross (talk • contribs) sock

as per established socks Judge_Howarth (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and Judge_Ian_Huntley (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), we now have Judge_Wiley_Stroker (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) actively editing... — ciphergoth 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

not forgetting Judge_William_Stroker (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) MikeHobday 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Socks blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Shazaam indeed! Swift work - thank you. — ciphergoth 21:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

AHOY!

Jeff---Thank you for the explaination. I obviously don't understand all the happenings at Wikipedia. I appreciate your apology and I offer mine for 'over-reacting' to the situation. I have been very ill recently and my patience is less than zero....that's a reason but shouldn't be an excuse. Best wishes, Lady Jane Grey 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey the Vandal

Say it aint so Jeffrey! Say it aint so! =) Mike (T C) 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC

Hey there. So I decided to try my hand archiving some +2 week old FARC noms as I'm sure you'll notice. I did my due diligence, looking at the pages to see if there was still momentum to change. I've left European Union. The consensus is remove and it is three weeks old, but I did see momentum there and I hate removing such an important page. I'll leave that one to you.

My other comment is on Fermi Paradox which is also due to be removed. I was the nominator and I've worked actively to make sure the nom fails... That is, I nominated to light a fire under people but also tried to address my own concerns. It's a bit of tough call: lots of comments (some questioning my good faith, sheesh) but only three real votes, including my nom. The page is now half-done: top half decently cited and tightened, bottom half still over-bulleted, uncited, and meandering. Anyhow, I think it should still be removed as it stands and I just thought I'd tell you I'm committed to getting it back up to snuff. Having it go back through a regular FA nom I think is a good idea. Cheers, Marskell 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Little math

956 - 4 = 952 ;) Raul654 12:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

'Twas fuzzy indeed. My bad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC and FAR

Hey again. I was wondering if you'd noticed the now lengthy discussion on the removal talk page regarding possibly merging WP:FARC and WP:FAR. Having gone through the rather odd experience noted above of nominating to get feedback even though removal wasn't my desired outcome, it occurred to me that there should be a public review before the actual period of possible removal. Anyhow, any comment would be appreciated. Marskell 08:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Message Spam about stuff I didn't write

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs2000 10:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)



Jeffrey—where are you?

Tony 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote, of all people, Satan, "...going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
In reality, I am on a sortof unexpected, indefinite wikivacation: I have been rather busy at work lately, and after an epic April 1 with more than 600 edits/actions accross 25 straight hours... I almost felt burned out a bit. Since then, with work taking up a lot of time, I was forced into decreased wiki-activity. For the first time in well more than year I am not compelled to check my watchlist or up my edit count. As for Farc, it is simply coincidental that I have dropped away from it during a moment of great transition, but ultimately, I am cool with that. I closed almost every Farc for eight months, but stepping back has shown that it (and my watchlist) can survive without me (which is a simple fact of life here that is often forgotten - it is easy to become far too rapped up in this life while neglecting other aspects of one's life).
Ultimately, stepping back has been rather liberating. I do drop by daily and will edit here and there but as for returning at the same level I had been at through March (editing hours a day), I simply do not know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Spam bout Brandt

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

I'd like to invite you to review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt. This is not a request for your endorsement, simply a request for your participation in the discussion. Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)






Afd campaign Spam

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

Since you've voted on the last AfD which resulted in DELETE, you might be interested, that the article is still here and I've created another AfD for it. Raphael1 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)







No.

Can you please revert edits to the Carlos Mencia page? (birth name, parents countries of origin). Its protected.

No it isn't. Fix it yourself. I've abandoned and disowned the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Update to User talk:Richard Branson

Hi Jeffrey. You recently made an inquiry on User talk:Richard Branson regarding the potential violation of username policy. I have updated that page with evidence supporting your suspicion. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeffrey - I reverted the change on "Branson"'s talk page because I had already messaged a few other interested admins with a wikilink to that section. Would that be okay, or should I go try to change those messages? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I moved the wikilink for the other messages. I'll go meditate on AGF.
Out of curiosity, what do you have against user pages? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll move this here then. I signed my note, and I didn't mean any offense by it. Rather, I found it amusing that someone made the accusation that my post was "unnecessarily inflammatory" not long after writing this in their edit summary to someone. Not that I'm trying to fault you, rather I was relieved to see both of us could let a little frustration show sometimes from our struggle to improve Wikipedia. But I tried to be careful in my post to just state the evidence as I had found it. That evidence overwhelmingly indicated that the user was another sock puppet of someone who had already been "indefinitely" blocked three times; at some point after "assuming good faith" for long enough and seeing persistent evidence of someone's bad faith, including obscene epithets at those of us who reverted from his linkspam for up to 8 times for the same spam, there is no longer much justification for assuming good faith. For the same reason, I didn't think my post was "unnecessarily inflammatory", as opposed to presenting the evidence, which I think was appropriate to try to protect Wikipedia by bringing attention to another sock puppet quickly, for a user with a long record of negative edits, without having to go through again the long process of repairing the damage and gathering the evidence I did to justify the indefinite blocking of the last two sock puppets. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring that this is rather pointless (and the above is a symptom of the bullshit that disenfranchises and frustrates so many, including at one time, myself), you are comparing apples to lamp-posts in regards to conduct. Posting an image of a hydra while accusing a user, in an inapropriate place, of certain conduct (whether or not it is true) is inflamatory and innapropriate. Saying a page (I had, incidentally written and guided for nine months) is shit on my own talk page when asked on my own talk page to intervene in a matter I was not needed in is simply stating my opinion - now if I had gone to the article's talk page on my own and posted an image of shit, that would be something else. Impersonating someone is bad, and blockable; changing another user's comments is just as inexcusable and blockable. I have no patience for people impersonating anyone to the detrement of the project, but I have less patience for wikilawyering and bantering about accusing users of certain conduct to the possible detriment of the project. Don't test me, the results may not be what you are looking for. As for Branson, all that stuff is irrelevant, frankly - the issue is that he either is, or isn't, and his answer to Raul's question will solve that problem toot sweet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may

Suggest a userpage, if only a place to leave some barnstars (you deserve a few :) -- Tawker 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And I've got a few in my talk archives. My userspace (when I've had one) was always a barnstar-free zone. Thanks, though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Leased fruit's Spam 'boot Favorite Songs

EXTERMINATE!
Enlarge
EXTERMINATE!

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New England

The New England debate IP came back and well, isn't too friendly or happy. I warned them about civility, but I thought you would like to know. Thanks, Yanksox (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Talk:New England
Thank you for stepping again once again. I tried to revert the abuse of the archive, but was promptly chastized. I had to be bold and still cognisent (sp?) of the discussion. I think I fumbled a little, but at least they repsected my stand in the end and didn't revert it once again. - CobaltBlueTony 17:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tactics

User also threatened to use terrorist tactics on Wikipedia[18]. Yanksox (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your red link

Maybe user pages are a bit evil, but especially as an administrator, it might not be very helpful for newbies to click on your name and find a red link. You might want to consider adding just a line or so (something similar to what you have at the top of this page) to User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Or even just turn that into a redirect to this talk page. I don't mean to intrude too much, but thanks for listening.--Pharos 18:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone from one of the most active administrators on en to barely editing, so my interaction with newbs is limited. Additionally, I just plain don't feel like having a userpage (redirect or not) any more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Dave Finlay

Please do not arbitrarily revert edits without justification, as you did here. McPhail 00:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not arbitrarily remove facts without justification, as you did here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Message

Hi, yes I'm the same Nuke-Marine that used to post more regularly on the moderate B5 newsgroup. Surprised you noticed one account. I'm guessing that means not many register daily for accounts here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuke-Marine (talk • contribs).

I'm a bad, bad man

Jeffrey

I am going to reinstate the text on the front of RJII's page. I don't see why it should be removed simply because the user has been blocked. I am not intending to be provocative here - I genuinely think it is interesting, it puts RJII's edits in context, and I am therefore adopting the text as my own. Please assume good faith about this. ElectricRay 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't blank it, and second, you couldn't reinstate it if you tried anyway: it's protected. And as far as assuming good faith with me, you already blew it. Testing me would not be in your best interest. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see the page unblocked, largely due to my own curiosity. I have been "working" (I use the term loosely since this editor is impossible to truly work with) ever since I came to wikipedia, and I for one would like a chance to see what they're whole purpose has been here. I know you probably won't for various policy reasons, but I really would like to see what has been making them tick. Ever since RJII have been on wiki, they has spawned a good deal of speculation and conspiracy theories, so I think it would be nice to see what it was all about. I know I'm not the only one who wants to know. You can even remove it as soon as they make the edit, I just want it to be in the history so we can look at it and see what the point was. I'm not trying to be contrary, I want you to know that, I really am just dying of curiosity. The Ungovernable Force 06:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Request denied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Might I ask, for what reasons? The Ungovernable Force 06:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As an administrator and authority figure on wikipedia, I would like to think you would be willing and able to explain your reasoning for actions. I find your lack of willingness to even communicate both frustrating and patronizing. This is meant to be a volunteer-run community, but that's difficult to achieve when administrators refuse to explain their reasons to us common editors. I was asking nicely and I would really appreciate a response. What policy is violated exactly, and more importantly, what harm is done in the long run by allowing this user to post this message? The Ungovernable Force 06:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First, administrators are not "authority figures," thank god. The RJII issue has been discussed amongst the community. The protection and removal of content is in line with precedent: we've seen this shit before, and we have a pretty good idea what we're doing, actually. We will not enable a troll to satiate your curiosity. Your curiosity is completely irrelevant to the goals of this project, which is building an encyclopedia. Continuing to push for this garbage will count as diruption. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not meaning to tread on your toes here, but I think the above response was pretty harsh. I think its pretty obvious why the request was denied, but could you try and put it in less blunt terms? While not breaching civility, being so blunt only helps to increase conflict. Clearly you are under no obligation to accede to his requests, but you could be a little nicer about it. Regards - FrancisTyers · 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to be "nice" to any goddamnedbody. I'm here to do a job, not hold the hands of jackasses and trolls. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ð (contribs- blocking thereof)

The record of your blocking of this guy reads a little harshly (and abruptly), since he's clearly a new user. Can't you offer him a page move or something to be a little more constructive. Linuxlad 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Page moves are for pages. Username changes are for users with more than two constructive edits. The block was valid, and my explination wasn't harsh - this is: who are you to try to tell me anything, when you barely seem to get policy yourself? Step off. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I redirected your user page to your talk page

Since you claim that you don't want a userpage, I decided to redirect your userpage to your talk page so that it will be more convenient for people who are trying to reach you. Feel free to undo this if you want to.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Somehow, people can edit an encyclopedia without knowing how to fucking read. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The deletion log of your userpage gives me endless joy. Yanksox 23:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency

I thought you may be interested that the length of the block of this user has been reduced to one week. See discussion on WP:AN/I. Pecher Talk 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If they want to continue dealing with the troll, that is their choice, I guess. I wash my hands of it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, would you kindly remove protection from User:His excellency's talk page? I noticed you added as your rationale for protection that he was indef blocked, this is no longer the case as I believe you're aware. Thanks. Netscott 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What part of I wash my hands of it do you not understand? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Talrias

I reverted your reversions of Talrias' userpage. I am in frequent communication with Talrias. He is well aware of the changes made to his userpage and enjoys them. What was done to his userpage is not vandalism in any respect. Thank you, --Durin 14:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So, am I allowed to add my opinion to the page like everyone else, or is it only select contributors? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

John Strausbaugh page

Strausbaugh is known for being a controversial figure. If his work offends you please find another way to express yourself. Deleting accurate information under the guise of stating that it was posted by a publicist is not appropriate. Thank you.

ITech

Actually, it was, per our Vanity guidlines and the Manual of Style. Thank you for alerting me to your changes - the page is now on my watchlist. Continued reversion will count as vandalism. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you do not wish to explain what is not acceptable about the post, please have the courtesy to change that which is not acceptable. It is not necessary to delete the entire piece. It appears to me that it is you who are vandalising this page, not me. I will take appropriate measures.

ITech

Okay. I read the Vanity guidelines and Manual as you suggested. I'd already reverted before I read your threat. I sought advice from another administrator and am making a revision. Hopefully it will be acceptable to you. You do seem to be somewhat ruthless, but I am new. Maybe just destroying people's work entirely is par. I also did a google test on Strausbaugh to make sure he was well known enough. In quotes, the name receives 26,000 hits. The book, "Black Like You" (in quotes) receives 11,900 hits alone and was published just three weeks ago. Thank you.

ITech

I have not deleted the article (because he is decidedly notable - you don't need to quote google hits to me, I used to read his New York Press), only the content that violates our policies. You are welcome to expand my revision in an encyclopedic manner, but the publicist's unwikified, P.O.V.'d advertisement cannot be allowed to stay. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Um, thanks for the welcome--I think. The article was not written by a publicist, just a journalist who used to write for the Press. I removed all the stuff that Ziggurat explained was "puff." Please do me the favor of letting me know if something is still "unwikified," or make the changes yourself. Thank you. Incidentally, is your Rouge/Roug page really a joke? Seems pretty accurate to me, particularly considering my welcoming wikinitiation.

ITech

User:Ziggurat's edit is ideal. As for the other stuff, I don't know wtf you're talking about, honestly, and I just don't care. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Uptake

At least you got it. Some folks have assumed it was a riff on the Terminator line, "I'll be back", which hadn't even occurred to me. "Will Begood" was a contender, but it was too ambiguous - admonition or promise? I've always dreaded coming up with usernames. I like yours, it's very original. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comments about my neutrality, even if they were deleted. ;) User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Babylon 5

Why did you revert your edit totally? Just trying to avoid the same mistake, but why isn't Stephen Franklin an exception to the "Africa" part of the paragraph? Unlike Takashima, he is part of the main cast. --Mucus 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So Fix It. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Morrow

There is little point in actually blocking him as he's on a dynamic IP. I'm just reverting his work and protecting the pages he's trying to work on. He's getting somewhat mad. He is a force to be reckoned with as he is a complete nutter and a very abusive one. However i have never once anywhere on the internet stated my address or the name or address of my employer, my full name (I don't use Knott any more) or any info that could be used to find me IRL so I care little for his threats. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks

You still haven't answered my question, though—what were you hoping to accomplish?

A block on the shared account. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to start a discussion about policy on shared accounts, you could have chosen a better method than opening with the flat statement that Hydnjo should be blocked under policy. Have you seen any indication at all that Hydnjo's shared account (and our acceptance/tolerance of it) has resulted in any harm to Wikipedia?

No. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As admins, we're expected to use at least a little bit of good judgement; Wikpedia is not a nomic, and we're not going to start unblocking Iasson role accounts just because there's a shared account in good standing somewhere else in our userbase. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I asked the wrong question above, then. Why were you hoping to see Hydnjo blocked, and how did you believe it would benefit Wikipedia to do so? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Policy. I am not here to make policy, but to enforce it. Ultimately, through discussion, it was pointed out that the Hyd half of the equation does not actively edit the Project, and it is unlikely that she will. As a result, a block for this specific case would not be necessary. That's why I brough it to AN, to see if I was wrong (which I was).
And I want to be absolutely clear: I would not use AN discussions as a back door policy initiative. I simply wanted to have a discussion about the situation before entering into a controversial block. If both people actively edited with the account, I would have pushed harder for a block (but would not have blocked without some kind of consensus to do so). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I just can't see the point of blocking—even if they were both editing. In the absence of harm, I don't see why we'd block. I suppose it's a philosophical difference. I think our role is as custodians rather than cops; our rules are meant to be a flexible framework to help us in our work, rather than a cudgel or straitjacket. As admins, we should look to solve problems through the application of policy and good judgement; we're not on a quota, looking for blockable policy violations in the absence of problems. Meh; I'm monologuing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't go out seeking policy violations. I saw it, and sought guidance on acting on it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well sure, you saw a policy violation—but the question is, did you see a problem? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider apologizing to hydnjo? He/they seem to be seriously offended by the notion that his/their account might be blocked. I don't care why you initiated this, but given the consensus is clearly against you if you could let him/them know you have absolutely no intention of pursuing this I'm sure he/they would quite appreciate it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong. I have been civil and complimentary in my discussions with Hydnjo. I have not used a single administrative action in this situation. I simply initiated discussion about the enforcement of policy. While I was wrong about a potential block, I was not wrong in my intent. My actions, and my record, speak for themselves: I have absolutely nothing to apologoze for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 July 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article WWE Video Library, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. --Mgm|(talk) 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tone

The order of the text in the inro makes it seem far more of a promo that it should, the first paragraph should be moved and the second put first.--Peta 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have depuffed the intro to make it seem less like "WWE IS BIG, and its so big (BIG) it done built a BIG library" and more like, "so there is this company that is rather large, and insodoing has ammassed a big ole library." The more I read it, the less I'm inclined to ditch the order of the intro, though my changes are less promo-y. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Very funny...

Loved it. [19] Now I'm wondering if I should ever try and activate it. If it means years of darkness, I may want to hold off a while. ;-) Thanks! --LV (Dark Mark) 14:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Everywhere Girl

Hello,

the deleteprotect is pointing to the wrong AfD page, it's actually the second nomination page that documents the DELETE on the article. 132.205.45.148 22:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, btw. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Everywhere Girl

I noticed in this edit that you protected the talk page so that The Inquirer doesn't get people to attack Wikipedia. While there is nothing wrong with that, it doesn't look very professional to attack The Inquirer (by sarcastically refering to The Inquirer as "that bastien of integrity") in the edit summary of that very same action. If you're trying to make Wikipedia look good that is not the way to do it. It only furthers a "Wikipedia vs The Inquirer" war of words, which is quite lame to begin with, and makes Wikipedia look petty. Suoerh2 21:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for the protection was to keep folks who otherwise have never been here from attacking the editors here who's actions led to the deletion of the article. These attacks, of course, were spurred on by the Inquirer. I actually don't care if they attack Wikipedia, more power to 'em, but don't attack our editors. As for the summary, even though I'd reckom my comments represent an accurate reflection of how many here feel about this situation, ultimately you are correct, and I have, through sneaky and underhanded means, removed said comment. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never been to the Inquirer web-site, yet I was looking for the Everywhere Girl. I do feel this whole debacle was a big mistake though. --Jabba27 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your assesment of the situation. There is no "debacle" here. As I have said, the actions of the experienced editors and administrators here in regards to this situation, especially in regards to the AfD closing statement by Aaron, have been exemplary and are a prime example of what is right with the Project. As for my participation, I actually have zero opinion on the whole debate. There was an AfD (with which I had no participation) that was validly closed as delete, followed by the recreation of the page which I reversed per the AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII

I noticed that you were the admin who originally banned user RJ for violating wiki policy. I have since discovered that user Vision Thing is one of the sockpuppets that user RJ [sic] eventually admitted to having (but did not identify) shorty before his departure. Due to the complex nature of the case I did not want to simply post this to [20] because I'm worried that an admin may simply do an IP check and move on without realizing that an IP check would not verify Vision Thing's status as a sockpuppet. If you could take a couple minutes to check my evidence I have compiled and then advise me on the best place to post it, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blahblahblahblahblahblah (talk • contribs).

Leave a note at the administrator's noticeboard. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

your reversion of my edit

[21] Why did you revert my edit there? I was correcting a spelling error on your talkpage header. ~crazytales56297 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you corrected the spelling error. And I reverted it. Because I felt like it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

Excuse me? To this I take offense. In my twenty months here I have always stuck to enforcing policy (except when it comes to certain arbcom issues). I saw your account, saw it was a prohibited role account, and initiated discussion about how to go about. That's it. No conspiracy by proxy (!?). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So, apparently, according to everyone and their cousin, I'm an awful human being for simply pointing out a policy violation and initiating discussion on it. That is all I did. Period. That despite their appreciation of my "courtesy," Hydnjo can still pull bizarre conspiracies out of the air attempting to beliitle my actions -- "acting as a proxy for another admin/user"? I have never been more offended. There is no issue anymore, indeed the end result was a consensus affirmation of Hydnjo's value to the community. Yet, somehow, a week later, otherwise uninvolved parties can crawl out of the woodwork (above and elsewhere) demanding apologies from me (?) when I have done nothing wrong. People are just skimming over things and seeing that, omigod! this guy tried to block Hydnjo!!1! insted of reading the words I wrote, and looking at the actual outcome of the situation. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at WP:AN and for your compliments about my contributions. The comments in my response were made in the shadow of my own frustration with my having left a trail of edits that could easily be construed as having come from either Heidi or myself. I sincerely apologize to you for making any suggestion as to your motivation in bringing up a legitimate policy question. You have a genuine concern for the orderly behavior of our editors and I thank you for initiating this discussion and providing me the opportunity to explain the nature of my account.

I will post this addendum to all of the users with whom I've posted my response and at WP:AN. --hydnjo talk 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about your comments

Hi, I read this in WP:ANI

The actions and comments from certain members of the keep side of the debate are really quite shameful. If anyone wonders why admins burn out or get upset occasionally, one need only look at the onslaught of willful ignorance and the completely undeserved sense of entitlement being utilized by certain members of that debate, threatening current editors who have had the courage to speak their mind, and even against anyone who would potentially enforce policy in regards to this debate.

I was just wondering what exactly you were referring to, like which users, and where they said that, because I am completely in the dark here. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Sometimes the dark is a nice place to be. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Signature.

It's breaking in some place, e.g., WP:RFPP. Will (message me!) 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What, my sig? I haven't posted to RFPP, so it can't be mine. I'm lost. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're quite welcome. You did the right thing by voicing your concerns. I think people are so used to emotional arguments and block wars and such that they overreacted to a simple polite query by you. Keep up the good work! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ALSAP done slapped! (Oh Snap!)

Hello Jeffrey, I'm new to Wikipedia, trying to get the game right. You deleted my entry for ALSAP. I re-added it and signed it this time. This is a non-commercial, no-money involved Alaskan historical project web site link. There are other historical web site project links on Wikipedia just like it. Please let me know if there is something inherently wrong with this entry be fore you delete it again ... and I will change it. Thank you. Alsap_Guy

This has been redeleted per a decision reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALSAP. Do NOT recreate the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Deletion for "self promotion". Huh? ALSAP is a historical web site? If anything is being promoted by this web site it is history, not me. Did you even look at the web site, www.alsap.org? Is history something that Wikipedia is trying NOT to promote? You might as well go and delete the link on Wikipedia for "NELSAP, www.nelsap.org", a similar skiing history site. I'm sure that will make those people happy and it will help your goal of narrowing the world's view of what went on before you were born. Regards. --ALSAP Guy 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jeff

You rogue you (or is it rouge - I can never remember). Anyway, we're still in NH counting the cows and listening to the grass grow and such.

Anyway, I'm truly sorry about the way I reacted to your inquiry about "us". What you brought up was a reasonable inquiry and my reaction was ... well... disturbing, even to me. It never occured to me that my (our) username would be interpreted as a "role account" and before you brought it up I didn't even know about "role accounts" at all. Anyway, I (and Heidi) wanted to get back to you to be sure that there were no hard feelings amongst us. To be sure (in retrospect) it was a good idea to bring it all out now with all of our friends commenting rather than later within some other context (I'm sure I'll piss someone off).

In reviewing all of the commentary (now archived for both of us) your introduction and explanation of this matter was kind and and informative and I'm so sorry that I felt otherwise, even for a moment. Further, Heidi and I want to feel sure about counting you amongst our friends here (she's the paranoid one). Please leave a note here or at ours with any additional thoughts, we would like to hear from you. Thanks from us ;-) --hydnjo talk 22:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

All is good, no worries. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. hydnjo talk 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

comment moved from user page

Hey, regarding this, please be more civil. Landersons 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

31 hour block?

Don't you think that was a little over the top for what could have been a good faith edit? After all, as you point out you are the only admin with one but they may not have seen it until too late. I could understand the block if s/he had been recreating it several times. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with half a brain stem will see, either throughout multiple points in my talk archives, the extensive deletion log, or the little thing directly above, that I do not want a userpage, period. Any attempt to create one for me when I have made it extensively clear that it is not my desire is not just vandalism but disruption (nine times deleted and counting)... doing it without somehow seeing that a userpage is not desired is disruption and ignorance. This is black and white, but I have unblocked him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I do realize that it's pretty obvious that you don't want a page but someone seeing your red signature may just click on it and not take the time to look at anything else. People can be very lazy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with CBW that it's obvious to someone looking at the logs that you don't want a user page, but I also have to agree with him that some people are lazy...or just don't know how to find the logs. It's the price you're going to pay for doing something that is – you must admit – a bit unusual. There's an argument to be made that blocking someone over something like this is equally antisocial, disruptive, making a point, downright rude, etc. If someone persists in recreating your user page after being instructed not to, a block would be appropriate. Otherwise, accept with good humour that you're going to have to do some maintenance work if you want to keep a red userpage link. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It is rather unusual for an admin to have no user page at all. I have no idea why it is an issue, but would you object to it redirecting to your User talk page? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would, and have deleted such in the past. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
For my own edification, would you care to explain why. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, no. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize you already unblocked, but I just wanted to express the opinion that it was a highly inappropriate block. I saw nothing in the edit to suggest vandalism at all. Friday (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest a BIG thing above? Perhaps red and blinking or something? Some people don't take the time to read the most obvious things. - CobaltBlueTony 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One's lack of remedial reading skills in the English language is not an excuse to subject everyone else to hideous html. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem needlessly hostile. Remember to AGF. Friday (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

S-protection of AN/I

Obviously not all that temporary, vandal is long gone, page is still RU only--205.188.117.7 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend to unprot it myself as I would not have been active - indeed, someone else did unprotect it after sicteen hours. Not as quickly as I would have hoped, but still not all that long either. Sorry for any inconvenience in posting to the board, if you had any. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please delete my talk page and restore it?

Jeffrey, please can you delete my talk page to remove the legal threat, and then restore it, thanks?? --TheM62Manchester 10:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, a legal threat is not a reason for such a deletion or oversight removal - those are reserved for libel, edits involving personally identifiable information, and certain technical things. I have reverted the edit, and shall leave a note with the user. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal Threat

  • It was a wish, not a legal threat. ED209 21:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali versus Antonio Inoki recreated

A user that you blocked, User:T00C00L, recreated this page in the past two days. Just thought I'd let you know. --Draicone (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. As far as I can tell, its copyvio free, so it stands for now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello. I had been working on the Muhammad Ali versus Antonio Inoki article to bring it up to standards. I was not the original author, and I had no idea it contained copyright violations. Sorry for not picking up on that. I see that it has once again been deleted. It certainly was a notable sporting event, so when I get the chance, I will try to start one from scratch from my limited research so far. Thanks. --Satori Son 13:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of Everywhere Girl

Dear Mr Gustafson, why have you deleted "Everywhere Girl"? Could you please direct me to the rules that has been broken with that article. Theextract

Hello

Please do not alter my userpage without first discussing it with me. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kumarrajendran

Hi Jeffrey. This user sent me a message saying he didn't understand any of the Orphanbot messages he got. I replied to him, and also replied on his talk page trying to explain what images he should upload. Apparently these are pictures of his grandfather, and I think he could help out with a free one that would replace the fair use image on M. G. Ramachandran. I've made it clear to him that copied images from web sites and screenshots are not to be uploaded for this article, and I think he understands. I lifted the block. Hope it's okay, restore if it's not. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ben's

Jeffrey:

I am new to Wikipedia and today involved my first experience. I worked very hard on that page. I would have appreciated it if you would have sent me a message identifying your concerns before taking down my work. I am intimately involved with the facts which you found to not be important. I am not sure who you are, but I am sure you meant well. Wikipedia seems to be a valuable resource. My contribution involved accurate information and I am happy to source it. Please reply as to how I may return my work to the page.

Best Regards

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashco76 (talk • contribs).

Arbcon

Aye you by any chance Disgruntled? Chin up :) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Feh, I've always had issues with the arbcom process. Nothing new here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to criticize me or any other Wikipedians. You are not welcome to insult anyone. I hope you didn't think you were helping matters. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have great respect for the individual members of the arbcom. Just not the process. If you were insulted, understand that it was not my intent... but I will not mince my words. I honestly just don't care if it was helpful or not. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment, but next time you'll have to put a little more effort into it if you didn't want "As do I, but... tisk, tisk, we forgot that arbcom is above us mere mortals, so it doesn't matter worth a damn what we say here" to sound like an insult. (Perhaps it was the unwarranted hostility, I don't know.) You'll also have to try a lot harder if you want that to sound like a valid criticism of the process. You know, perhaps addressing the process? Dmcdevit·t 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I made a simple factual statement. If I intended to make a long winded point by point criticism that ultimately won't be worth a damn, I would have. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bijan (designer)

Why did you delete the page I was working on? I'd marked it as a stub and was probably coming back to it. Thanks a lot.Wjousts 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as speedy A7 and deleted as such. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Because you haven't heard on the subject it gets deleted? The subject is linked to from another page (Givaudan) because he is important enough to be listed along with Calvin Klein, Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs, Ralph Lauren and Hugo Boss on the their website ([22]) and if you'd bothered to look at the link I included ([23] and [24]) there are other reasons for importance. I was working on finding other sources. Wjousts 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so write an article that contains sufficient sources and asserts sufficient notability and you wont have a problem. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
So how about you restore what I did so I don't have to start from stratch? If you'd bothered to look at the Rodeo Drive entry you would have seen Bijan listed amongst the "more famous retailers" on Rodeo Drive. Instead you jump the gun and pissed all over my work in less than an hour because of you ignorance. Thanks a lot. Pull your head out your ass before you make a decision next time. Wjousts 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Bijan (designer) on deletion review: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bijan (designer). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Sorry that took so long, I meant to do this last night. Its restored and on AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Identifycommunication aka User:Eternal Equinox

Thanks for blocking Identifycommunication. Could you please log the block here? Bishonen | talk 03:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

Pierre Rosenstiehl

I did not contribute to the article Pierre Rosenstiehl which you deleted, and have no vested interest in it, but in my view, Rosenstiehl does not really fall under the A7 criterion for a speedy deletion. He is a well-known and respected graph theorist (e.g., [25]). If you still think he is not notable, would you consider restoring the article and putting it up for AfD? I suspect the folks at WikiProject:Mathematics might like to have a look, and maybe some of the experts in that specific area could improve whatever the article's problems were/are. Michael Kinyon 12:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to restore this right now. Charles Matthews 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a clear assertion of notability in the deleted article. I'm not in that field, so I cannot confirm whether he is notable. Please restore the article. (I have no interest in the article or the field, but I saw the author's question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Pierre Rosenstiehl is, among other, editor in chief of the European Journal of Combinatorics and co-founder of the Graph Drawing international conferences. I would like to know where you put the threshold of notability. Anyway, it would have been fair to put at least an explanation on my talk page. pom 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems someone else has restored/recreated it in the interim. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Alm93 and French Canadians

Hello. I see that you are laboriously reverting much of Alm93's changes to remove his French Canadian categories. While I read on his profile that some of his edits were of dubious validity, a great number of the people in his edits were indeed French Canadians. Would there be a reason why this category is not good, or do future edits have to supply proof? Thanks for clearing this up, I hope it will make me a better contributor. Arasaka 02:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The reversions were discussed ahead of time here. I simply finished what others started. Please see the relevant discussion there. In the event of verifiable categorization, feel free to ad where appropriate and verifiable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a bit of a conundrum here. I can tell perfectly well a French Canadian from one that is not (being one myself), based on their name for example, or knowing their birth and presence in Quebec (or other parts of Canada where other proheminent French Canadians would reside), but it is incredibly impractical to provide proof of French ancestry. What proof would be necessary? Compare Category:African Americans, for example. Arasaka 15:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
My own opinions aside, this is an issue for the community to figure out. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The New Hampshire Gazette

I *wondered* why it kept disappearing. But I didn't see it on the pages history, so I guess I kept thinking I was imagining things :)

Is there a reason you don't want collaboration on the page? Or input from others? The WP:NH tag is meant to draw in collaborators, not just signify that input from the WikiProject has taken place.

If there's a valid reason not to include the page in WP:NH, that's kewl. I don't plan on adding the tag again, since you're so vehemently against it. But since the project exists in order to "expand and improve NH-related articles", I would think you would welcome the addition.

But whatever. Have fun. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does not need to be part of any project for people to see it or contribute to it. Indeed, the Project New Hampshire tag is being plastered over so many pages, it is unlikely that one could find anything in that melee. I do not own the article and I have zero problem with improvement or expansion, but do not think it should have silly or useless tags that misattribute its origins. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Maybe you're right. Maybe 700+ pages for WP:NH is too much - VT has 150 and NJ has 200. I guess I might have been getting overzealous :) Sorry about that! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well meaning folks simply not paying attention...

You might consider simply redirecting your usepage to your talk page. It prevents red links and makes you easier to find. If you don't like that idea, cheers anyway. --Doc 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For the eightieth time, no. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Heartware (short film) deletion

Hi there,

I understand you deleted the 'Heartware' entry I recently added to the database. The film is presently being processed on IMDB and is doing the rounds at festivals. Distribution has yet to be discussed with production firms, but I will update the entry as and when things happen I suppose.

As for the red/dead links to the creators of the film, I will be creating new entries and adding those to the database as well.

Would truly appreciate it if you could place the entry back online.

Kind regards,

Joe

I will restore it and put it up for a vote. But do NOT create pages just to fill in the redlinks. Just because the movie is made does not mean a thing, and that it has not been sold and isnt notable enough for IMDb means it will be deleted again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Zion Bible College

I noticed that you placed the word school in quotation marks in your proposed deletion of the above titled page. I have removed the quotation marks because they could be construed as inappropriate hostility toward religious institutions. Please let me know if you have any concerns about this action. Erechtheus 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as its still prodded. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on that now. There's a high probability that it's either getting a prod2 or the prod will be removed. I won't know until I finish looking into the school. Erechtheus 03:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard Buckle

I've removed your prod on Richard Buckle. It deserved the other tags, but I don't get why you proposed deletion of a new article where it immediately says the subject has written a number of books. ?? --Mereda 15:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if he supposedly wrote any books - of which there was no verification at the time of my prodding. Indeed, the prod worked in that sources were found and added. That you don't "get it" is completely irrelevant to me because the better of the two options (improvement over deletion) was the ultimate outcome. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It's unusual to see an experienced editor making choices like that. The newbie's article was about 90 minutes old, and it already said "His publications include the most comprehensive biographies of Nijinsky (1971) and Diaghilev (1979) ..". That's a fair assertion of notability so what you did wasn't in line with WP:DEL; and then what you said in the prod - "Non notable critic" - didn't reflect the visible facts either. Not a good call, but no harm's done. Maybe try counting to ten next time? --Mereda 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear

I am sorry about that I'm trying to do more than one thing at a time, I will pay more attention 'and be more careful in the future! Thanks for pointing that out!--JiMoThYTALK 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help with user creating spam/nonsense articles.

Hey, I see you speedy-deleted the Safari Windows article yesterday. The user who created the article, Ethan.hardman, seems to be up to, erm, to be civil, nonsense, again. I'm going to go through the full AfD process on the articles, but can you keep an eye on the articles Mac2pc and Click Here? Maybe wave an administrative cudgel?

Thanks, perardi 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Shadow Falls article

I noticed that you deleted an article that I started about the Shadow Falls podcast. I was just wondering what your motivation was behind this. I created the short article beacuse I think it's a worthwhile subject, though admittedly I didn't have much time to add more content (show by show synopses, cast listings, producers, etc). I was planning on filling out the article when I had more time to research and catalogue some of my findings.

Regards, Flux Harmonic 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've restored it for now, removed the copyvio'd stuff, and added tags. Try to add sources supporting its notability and importance. If that cannot be verified, then it will be put up for deletion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Speedying

I know I could delete them myself, but I like to have a second pair of eyes involved, just in case I've screwed something up. When the margin of error is slim enough for my satisfaction, I don't hesitate to delete the articles. Thanks for keeping an eye on me. :) - EurekaLott 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Violations

Geez. It's not like I was a vandal or something. But the talk page won't be used anymore. Clinevol98 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It was an abuse of policy, regardless. Your cooperation is appreciated. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Spammer

Thanks for letting me know. Onionmon 20:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. And Stop Spamming. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ForestH2

I am the brother of ForestH2 contributing from the same house. Forest left because he was disgusted and is not coming back. I decided to come to see if it was that bad. Aquafish talk 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I seriously, seriously doubt that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User Too Cool

Hi,

The user T00C00L, whom you have blocked several times before, has resurfaced as User:Too Cool. He has followed the very same pattern of edits (such as making major changes without any edit summaries, removing content from Wikipedia articles like here), and has gone to make other personal attacks and similar comments against other editors, like this instance here, where he claimed another Wikipedia editor was “spamming” when the editor in question obviously did not, and many other instances, where he has used such words as "stupid" and "stubborn". He has also tried to repetedly re-create several deleted articles - like here: List of notable anime, etc. (which were earlier deleted via concensus, and later deleted again after he tried to re-create them) and was also warned immediately for his edits on his new account, all of the warnings which he later removed from his talk page and warned for 3RR once by another admin, which he also later removed from his talk page. Reasoning with him has apparently no use whatsoever unfortunately, even after other editors asked him to mantain Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Civility and the manual of style. Since you were aware of his vandalism from his previous user account, I thought it necessary to inform you of the actions of his new account. Is such a use of creating new user accounts valid? Ganryuu (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your block of User:Too Cool is wrong, and I've undone it. Those two accounts were never in use at the same time, and as far as I can tell, the user in question didn't evade a block with the new account. It seems to me like this user is trying to edit in good faith, and is making improvements to the encyclopedia overall. Mangojuicetalk 12:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I find this action disruptive and unnacceptable. You failed to discuss the block with me beforehand, which is standard practice and common courtesy. If you had bothered to show me any respect in this case by further inquiring about my reasoning, you would see that the block is not for sock evasion. This editor has a consistent editing pattern that flaunts our policies and procedures. He had been facing increasingly escalating blocks for incivility, personal attacks, OR/NPOV editing, and outright copyright violation under his old account, and had he continued he would have been permabanned anyway: umpteen warnings and several blocks have been useless, and he will continue. Jumping accounts to try to hide from administrative attention is not carte blanche for continuing the same activities that caused him to be blocked repeatedly and justifiably in the past. I have reversed your reversal. If you have an issue with that, take it to AN for, oh, I don't know, discussion maybe? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

edit conflicts make baby jesus cry

That made my morning, thanks. --Kbdank71 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJeffrey_O._Gustafson_Archive0_5f1b.html"