User talk:JzG/Archive-Dec-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of discussions from user talk:JzG and/or user talk:Just zis Guy, you know?. This is a general archive for November 2006 Please do not add new discussion here, click this link to leave a message at my active Talk page. Thanks.

---

[edit] Colonial Mall Decatur

Umm, can you please explain to me why the Colonial Mall Decatur was deleted. You gave no reason, that I could find. I looked in the pages for deletion and could not find it listed. Please, tell me why you, for some odd reason, deleted this article. AlaGuy 06:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, I don't believe that the article was a directory or spam. I created the page and I am in no way form or fashion related to the mall. I despise the place. I really don't understand why it was deleted. Now, if someone spammed the site, wouldn't it just make more sense to delete the spam and delete the IP address or user? AlaGuy 19:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Society recreated by sock puppet

Hi!

I am sorry to bother you with this but a little under an hour ago Mega Society was recreated by a single-purpose account. Also, moments after my speedy tag was removed by Michael Price. Could you salt and block please? Also should I request CheckUser on Michael Price given his mysterious appearence moments after a single purpose account recreated the article?

Cheers, MartinDK 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardly mysterious: it's on my watchlist. Do do a UserCheck. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have lots of deleted articles on my watchlist, too. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, could you, as an admin, restore the Mega Society and its talk page, with histories? User:JzG admits he raised the 2nd AfD in error[16] but refuses to restore the article in despite of a number of complaints on his talk page, from various users, about his violation of procedure. Or should I go to arbitration? --Michael C. Price talk 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avraham"

cannot restore it directly per wiki policy. I suggest first WP:DRV and perhaps mention on WP:AN/I. -- Avi 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If the problem continues I might take it to WP:AN/I, although it has just become moot since someone else has just re-created it. Well, sort of... --Michael C. Price talk 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelCPrice"

Thanks for solving the problem. The above conversation in mind I'll assume good faith and just let it be. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to ask you first since I'm still kind of new here when it comes to these things. Still sounds like an odd sequence of events to me but it doesn't matter anymore. MartinDK 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this page need protection as well? --DaturaS 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cynwyd Elementary School

Regardless of the result of the earlier AfD, and regardless of when it occured, articles can and are recreated after "failing" an AfD. In many cases, the explicit purpose of a redirect is to allow the article to be recreated once additional information is available to establish notability. If you compare the article as it exists now after undoing your revert to the one that existed at the time of the AfD, you will see that the article has been expanded, is fully sourced, and makes explicit claims of notability. Pursuing a WP:DRV is not an option, as I have no issue whatsoever with the decision based on the state of the article at the point the the AfD was created and the decision made to "Speedy Delete" was not unjustified at the time. If you feel that the article in its current state does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, the next step would be to create another AfD. Alansohn 14:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Call me jaded, but seeing it back in all it's "glory" so soon after the AfD looks awfully like "I don't like that result, I think I'll just ignore it". The next step surely should be DRV, rather than simply ignoring the (very recent) AfD. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will call you jaded. Please share with me a specification of how long one must wait to recreate an article and I will wait the requisite amount of time. Now that it exists, it either meets criteria for retention or it does not. Pursuing a WP:DRV can only challenge the legitimacy of the original AfD, which I do not question. In the rush to close this, there was no time to enhance the article to meet the issues that had been raised. They have been addressed, necessarily post facto, and stand to serve the community for this article. Alansohn 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Longer than you did, anyway. If you'd taken the new information to DRV I'm confident the result would have been no problem, and I am certainly no process wonk, policy is all, but I think you'd have to agree it doesn't look good, does it? It's not like there is any kind of widespread consensus to keep schools at this level, there are simply too many of them. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have often advocated that the Baseball Hall of Fame should limit itself to say a net of one new member per year. You'd be able to add more than one in a given year, but you'd have to knock out some existing members to fit in the new ones. We don't have that issue on Wikipedia. If an article meets retention criteria, it should be kept, regardless of how many we have just like it. I agree that all schools are not notable and that many elementary school articles should be deleted. The fact that there is widespread consensus hasn't help prevent AfDs for high school articles, and the fact that there is an opposite consensus on many elementary schools doesn't mean that all should be deleted. It doesn't look good? It looks like someone took the time to improve the article, and it either stands on its own as it exists or it doesn't. Alansohn 00:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradise Valley Mall on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paradise Valley Mall. 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.

(Apologies for placing this in the wrong area at first)

I have been editing pages on shopping centers in the Phoenix, AZ area, where I live, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up.

Today I found that the page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted by you citing (WP:CSD G11, spam,) as a reason. I would beg to disagree with your conclusion as 1) Metrocenter is a major shopping center in Phoenix, one of the USA's major cities and 2) using such criteria would arguably disqualify several dozen articles on shopping malls, including all the other ones in the Phoenix area (see List of shopping malls in the United States). Shopping centers are a topic of great social, cultural and economic significance in the USA and worldwide and deserve coverage on Wikipedia. Articles on them should not be deleted. Please strongly consider reposting the article, and/or I will begin a replacement article within 48 hours. I have posted a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Msr69er 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See several sections above. I deleted a very large number of articles many of which were part of an evident spamming campaign and all of which seemed to me to be directory entries, one of the things that Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am making a similar assertion that the article Paradise Valley Mall needs to be reinstated on the same grounds. I disagree that any of the articles on the Phoenix Westcor malls qualify as spam. I made substantial edits to the article Paradise Valley Mall which make it much more encyclopedic in tone than the original.--Msr69er 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still not a directory. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the guideline on directory entries, I would assert that the entire classification of shopping centers, if this guideline were to be strictly applied across the board, may indeed be considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am a relatively new Wikipedian so I'm still learning the rules. There should be a long and hard debate on this as it would theoretically mean the deletion of dozens upon dozens of well written individual articles on individual shopping centers, many of which denote places of strong and significant cultural, social and economic interest (along with major skyscrapers, sports stadiums, universities, government buildings such as the U.S. Capitol, etc.,) - and for such reason I would always argue for inclusion. Again I assert that the shopping center category is completely appropriate for coverage on Wikipedia, but if it is not, what would make that category appropriate at all? Let's have a debate among Wikipedians on it. Where do I start?--Msr69er 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you say on the deletion review page that "the primary notability criterion (for appropriateness as an encyclopedia article)...is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". The Arizona malls have been extensively coverered for decades in local media (newspapers and locally produced magazines), and are considered a vital part of the regional economy. Would the remedy for reinstatement simply be the inclusion of more footnotes?--Msr69er 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of it is trivial. How many books are there on any of these malls? Guy (Help!) 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not many scholarly books exist on individual malls (that I am aware of), but rather on the mall phenomenon as a whole. "Reliable secondary sources" would need to lean heavily on the local newspapers. It sounds, from your assertions and policy citiations, as though Wikipedia is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. I would still disagree on the grounds I argued, but if those are the rules, then certainly I must abide by them, but if you speedy delete the articles I have questioned, you must do the same to about 75% of the rest in the interest of fairness. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted, and you have quite a workload ahead. Is there a place where such announcements are made to all editors? Can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?--Msr69er 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thig is, if the mall phenomenon is notable (which it is), then we have an article on shopping mall. The fact of the concept being notable does not confer notability on all or specific examples of that phenomenon. I have no problem at all with userfying for transwiki, my main concern here was what I can only see as a spamming campaign (and no, you are not a spammer). A newspaper story on the opening of a mall is pretty small beer - local newspapers will carry articles on the opening of an envelope if it's a slow news day. As to the rules, it's only my interpretation of the rules, and then only in this specific instance. So do please open a wider discussion at the Village Pump or somewhere, it would be good to have a bit of clarity. Please, though, let's have an end to the mall directory entries. An article on a generic mall which states its opening date and location and lists the anchor stores really is not an encyclopaedia article, to my understanding. I have no problem with articles on genuinely notable malls. Ones which break new ground (in the objectively verifiable sense, not the marketing bullshit sense, of course), ones which have changed the landscape by turning a poor town into a prosperous one, that kind of thing. Anything, really, as long as it's a substantive and verifiable claim to notability beyond mere existence. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images, malls

Image:Gurnee Mills wide.jpg and Image:Gurnee Mills.jpg were speedy deleted... was there a licensing issue on these? I can provide the original 6MP files with timestamps that match the original upload times, and other information that shows they came from my camera. Also, both were deleted with the comment that they were orphaned, though both are still in use, the first by Mills Corporation, the second by Gurnee, Illinois. Since they're in use, and don't fall under CSD-I3, I've restored them.

As an aside, it was clear that Dvac (talk • contribs) was some sort of spammer. Gurnee Mills could have been much better sourced, so I won't protest its deletion much. Though I would like to note that the article existed long before Dvac came around, and Dvac's edits were frequently reverted, and it was frustrating to try to communicate with them about unencyclopedic content, and it's unfortunate that the frustrating collaboration was repaid by having the article deleted just because they touched it at some point. (though, as I said, if a stub is eventually created again, it needs to be much better sourced, so I won't protest). --Interiot 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If a sourced article on the mall which demonstrates notability can be written, then I will undelete the images. I usually remove images on deleted articles that do not link elsewhere, just to keep the place tidy. Maybe that's wrong. Or maybe they did link elsewhere and I missed it. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the note mainly to mention that I've undeleted them already, because they are (and were at the time of deletion) in use by other pages. --Interiot 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks (I saw you undeleted these; there were others, hence the comment about undeleting). Sorry about that, the image link thing is not 100% reliable and neither am I - in the end it was probably my fault. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightly related to this:

[edit] Metrocenter Mall on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metrocenter Mall. 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcomm

Just noticed that you were running. I'm really glad to hear that. Guettarda 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

oh my, and I am getting enough flak for the bumper stickers I already have. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings!

Greetings, oh puppetmaster! [1]. Do you suppose that ripping sound could be the guy from AMA tearing his hair out? Bishonen | talk 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I left a note on the AMA request - I think the poor advocate is going to have his work cut out with this one! Dear oh dear. That's two of my most disputations former sparring partners active at once, as well. What joy. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fys's block

Guy,

I'll leave what to do about Fys's block up to you. IMHO, it was a reasonable block, because Fys was over 3RR and because Detoxification's specific edits at issue don't look like vandalism. On the other hand,

• Last week, Detox specifically threatened to go on a vandalism campaign on the Tim Ireland page;[2] and
• Fys has promised no more reversions pending mediation.[3]

Like I said, I think it was a good block, but there were some extenuating circumstances and Fys has now promised to behave, so I'll leave the decision up to you. Thanks, TheronJ 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He has behaved like a complete arse, and I think the reason for that is probably that he is a complete arse. I fart in his general direction. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For future reference: I take the view that it is not for me, if blocked, to offer pledges as to good behaviour; however, if others suggest a pledge which would lead them to unblock, then I will definitely consider it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fys, the whole reason you got into this mess is that you didn't make any effort to work constructively with Guy or Viridae (or, for that matter, with Detox - if you had made the effort, you wouldn't have gotten blocked). IMHO, you have every effort to work constructively with the other editors, and I hope you do. As for my obligation, I stepped in because Guy asked for a second look, but you've been so prickly that it makes it hard for me to be proud of my involvement. Like I said, please consider a little more sugar and a little less vinegar in the future. (And no, Guy's statements to you aren't comparable - you've earned them in a way that Guy and Viridae never earned your vitriol, and your underlying actions were an edit war and 3rr violation, while Guy's are a good faith request for an outside opinion and a decision to unblock. Go and sin no more, and we'll all laugh at these times in a year or so). TheronJ 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no complaints as to your behaviour, TheronJ. Nor have I complained when JzG had a good go at me (par for the course, really). My complaint is that he blocked first and then asked for discussion. Blocking prevents a user from going to the talk page. Instead, he first came to my talk page at 10:58 purporting to request talk page activity, and blocked at 11:05. In between that time I had not edited the article, nor WP:AIV nor anything other than talk pages. It was a bad call to block. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's like this: blocks are preventive. If a user gives an unequivocal undertaking not to repat the problem behaviour, a block is no longer necessary. If they refuse to do so, it clearly is necessary. This seems to me to be a pretty straightforward interpretation of blocking policy. Sometimes people abuse my good faith and go on to continue their disruption; I generally do not give them a second chance. I do not think I am particularly block-happy, but I do not respond well to aggression from tendentious editors, and there is no possible doubt that you are a tendentious editor. As TheronJ says, if you go away and stop being a dick, there will be no further problems. 80.176.82.42 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is for the blocking admin to request a pledge of good behaviour, not for the blocked editor to volunteer such a pledge. And your repeated insistence that I am tendentious (which I interpret here as a claim that the reason I want the Tim Ireland weblog included is that it is critical of Anne Milton, to whom I am politically opposed) is absolutely wrong. If you really want to know, I belong to the shade of opinion within the Labour Party who regard Liberal Democrats as far worse than Tories, and I disapprove both of Tim Ireland's politics and some of his methods of campaigning. I should have reacted exactly the same if it had been a Labour MP. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are beating the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay; your block log and ArbCom sanctions speak for themselves.

I am also at liberty to lift blocks if the blocked user undertakes not to repeat the problematic behaviour, and I see absolutely no inconsistency between this position and blocking policy, which states that blocks are preventive not for punishment. You can pretend to yourself that you are right, if it helps you sleep at night, but since every other admin who looked at the situation appears to agree with me I would suggest that you are in a minority of approximately one. I don't think I have any more to say to you at this point. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not having you make unwarranted assumptions about my politics. You really know nothing whatsoever about my politics and have jumped to entirely incorrect assumptions. It would, however, explain a lot if that is what led to your incorrect decision to block. I will tell you again, and you will listen, that the reason I think Tim Ireland's weblog deserves mention in Anne Milton has nothing whatsoever to do with my agreeing with its criticisms. Shocking that you should make such an unwarranted assumption. Even more shocking that you should stick to it after you have been corrected. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't dream of making unwarranted assumptions. Very few people edit war over content they do not care about. The bloody smear is now down to a vague shadow on the pavement, it is really time you stopped beating it. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• • One may care about content because of its merit as content rather than agreeing with its substance, and that is the case here. You're "bloody smear"ing me. If your assumption is merely that as a Labour Party supporter I must agree with and support every attack on a politician of any other party, then you are being not only insulting but extremely naive about politics. Do you want me to point you to the articles I've written about political figures from other parties and which are perfectly neutral? [You're also violating WP:AGF (not merely that, since my good faith is real and not an assumption), and also the Jimbo observation that as Wikipedians we leave our own opinions behind and write neutrally. You have absolutely no evidence for your stance. The equivalent stance on my part would be to accuse you of a political bias against me because you dislike the Labour Party. That might possibly be true, but I have no evidence for it (even if I happened to know how you vote) and so I do not dream of suggesting it. Really, your behaviour has been infantile in the extreme. I will not give this up until you apologise for imputing motives as you are. Apologise and withdraw. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Nowhere in the Arbitration case was it stated that I had edited in a POV way. The NPOV principle isn't included in the finding, which indicates that the arbitrators didn't consider it relevant to the case. Hope this "killer fact" helps. If you're so unwise as to continue in your opinion then be warned, there may be more that I know which you don't. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is now barely a shadow where the bloody smear of the dead horse once was. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Fys edit wars, quite right, the fact that your edits were also POV is an unnecessary corollary, the fact of bipartisan edit warring is sufficient. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Admission of defeat: you have no case. There is no justification for the stance you have adopted and you know it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admission of defeat

If this isn't an admission of defeat then I don't know what is. I suppose you think I was deliberately lying when I made this edit back in June. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Reference your recent edit summary: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for your understanding, assistance and guidance. It is much appreciated.Dgray xplane 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You had just better repay this by becoming as good an editor as Stephen :-) Guy (Help!) 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GetWiki

Hello. First of all, I apologise for my earlier behaviour. I notice that why the issue is still subjudice at deletion review, User:Robert Buzink has created a "new" GetWiki article. I want to emphasize that there was no collusion whatsoever between Robert Buzink and me - I'm just letting you know what I noticed. David Cannon 10:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's not a problem, anyone can get carried away :-) Guy (Help!) 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)

You deleted Willowbrook Mall at 00:03 on November 24, citing CSD G11 spam. I disagree. The article was informative. Please restore and nominate it for deletion so it can go through a discussion. Thanks. Clipper471 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Yellow Pages is also informative. See above. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you not restore and nominate it for deletion so it can go through a discussion? It seems that because of one editor's spamming, all these articles were deleted. I personally saw the spam in some and reverted his edits because of it. Seems a little harsh to punish the entire class because of one rotten student. Clipper471 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against a deletion review, but I don't believe any of the articles I deleted was more than a directory entry, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas). 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. Clipper471 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The Shops at La Cantera

You deleted The Shops at La Cantera at 00:01 on November 24, citing CSD G11 spam. Please restore and nominate it with Afd so it can go through a discussion. Thanks. Clipper471 15:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One of many, see above. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD abuse at Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey)

I am extremely concerned about your rampage of deletion of perfectly legitimate articles regarding malls via the WP:CSD process, which is intended to deal with non-contentious deletes and has been abused at Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey) and elsewhere. As demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000, there is widespread and overwhelming support for such articles, despite your personal, arbitrary and irrational distaste for such articles. If you feel a particular article should be deleted, please take the decent and intellectually honest approach, place a notability tag, ask for expansion and use the AfD process, rather than abusing CSD to delete perfectly valid articles or articles that could easily be improved to meet your arbitrary standards. As stated at WP:CSD, "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism.... Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved..." As none of the criteria for speedy deletion have been met in this case, your decision to take it upon yourself to delete the article is a blatant abuse of your authority as an administrator and the CSD process to pursue your own personal biases. Your claims that these articles are directory entries are patently false and deliberately misinterpret WP:NOT. Alansohn 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rampage? Perfectly legitimate? Perhaps a little good faith might be an idea here. I found a user who had created and editd a large number of articles on malls all owned and operated by a single company. WP:NOT a directory or storefront. I left a note on the admin noticeboard about it as well. And it was one session, none since. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vista Ridge Mall on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vista Ridge Mall. 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.

[edit] Page on an Arizona shopping mall deleted without warning

[edit] Metrocenter Mall on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metrocenter Mall. 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.

[edit] The Mall at Steamtown

On November 23, you deleted the page for The Mall at Steamtown. As it appeared initially, it was definitely sounded like an advertisement, but I performed extensive rewrites to bring it back to NPOV, and I believe that I did so successfully. I respectfully disagree that it qualified under G11.Brad E. Williams 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just found the deletion review, so I'll add a note there to see if it can be reinstated. Brad E. Williams 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Together 4 ever

They're at it again. Fan-1967 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chatting

Looks like we've got a group of 10-12 year-old girls using their talk pages as a chat site. Baby-girl015 (talk • contribs), Beccaboo 06 (talk • contribs), Natigurl 06 (talk • contribs), Cutie Pie06 (talk • contribs). Any ideas? Fan-1967 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What you did seems about right to me. See if they continue. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting worse. They're leaving invitations to chat not only on other User Talk pages, but article Talk pages, Fan-1967 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One of them appears to have created the following:

1. Babyphat (talk • contribs)
2. Big daddy thick (talk • contribs)
3. Sexy 06 (talk • contribs)
4. Big gay bubba (talk • contribs)
5. ! JAY ! (talk • contribs)
6. Pretty Ricky1820 (talk • contribs)
7. Sexy Virgo Baby (talk • contribs)
8. Sexy Jamacian (talk • contribs)
9. BabyBlueStar (talk • contribs)
10. Sexy Chocolate 09 (talk • contribs)
11. Sexy Scorpio10 (talk • contribs)

Taking to ANI. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

This is with regard to the Notable attacks by LTTE deletion review. Proto is saying that everything I am saying is not true. I dont have an admins rights so I cannot even retrieve the pages to make a statistical analysis. If you could please go through pages and offer an opinion.Dutugemunu 13:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, also is the AFD itself accessible to normal users. I tried searching but couldnt find it 220.236.183.59 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE

Hi. For your information, and further to the DRV discussion, I've restored Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. Proto::type 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairy nuff. I have no opinion, really, I was just being helpful :-) Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just zis Thanks, yano?

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA (and clichéd confusion), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Rapid Transit - link deletion

Hello,

I added a link to my PPT project (www.pptproject.com) on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

But you deleted it. May I ask why? This is a sincere effort on my part at contributing to a solution. I don't have any ads of any kind. To the contrary, I've contributed a great deal of my time to this project, not to mention the hosting and domain name fees. I would be very appreciative if you could restore the link, or at least let me know why you don't feel it's appropriate.

Gary Stark gary@pptproject.com

• See WP:EL, links to avoid. The word "my" says it all here. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I'm fine with leaving out the work "my". Is that sufficient to restore the link? If you take a look at the actual website (www.pptproject.com), you will see that it's a completely serious proposal and NOT about self promotion.

gary

See WP:EL, links to avoid - links to sites you own or control. Also links to commercial sites. Also promotional links. This is simply not appropriate, sorry. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I added the link under "External Links", "Proposals". And if you took a look at my site, you must realize that it's not at all about Spam as you suggested when you deleted it. So what possibly reason is there not to include it? And I'm not asking you to site some arbitrary rules somewhere. I'm asking for your personal opinion. All of the other links in this section point to personal or commercial sites. I don't see the difference. Finally, if you still think it doesn't belong in this section, where do you think it belongs? -- gary

It's a link to your site, and it has not been identified as a significant proposal by any external authority that I can see. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that:

1) since no "external authority" has blessed the concept, you are censoring it? So there's no room on Wikipedia for personal innovation? How do you think new ideas come into being in the first place?

2) Yes, it's 'my' site. So if someone else were to add the link, it's OK?

I think if you look closer at the "approved" links, they are not that much different. And the very fact that your initial deletion was based on your labeling of my site as "spam" is not being addressed in this discussion. Or do you still see my site as spam? Guy, I feel that this is really unfair and would ask that you please reconsider.

gary

The fact that It's yours means that you should not be lobbying for its inclusion in the first place. The fact that it has no obvious authority and no obvious support from any authority means that, per WP:EL, it should not be included anyway. Allegations of censorship are entirely inappropriate. Note that external links are there to provide reliabel sources for the content of the article and to include a level of detail which would be considered excessive within the article itself - they are not there to promote or endorse a site or concept. Spam has a particular meaning on Wikipedia, discussed at WP:SPAM: links included to publicise the site or its contents are considered spam. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So the difference between my proposal and the approved proposals is that they are recognized by some third party "authority", but mine isn't. Can you be more specific? Who is this entity or group? How does a new concept get the blessing of this authority?

Yes, I agree that I'm the one who added the link and I am the creator of the website. So if I can find anyone else willing to post the link besides myself, is this then allowed? Or do you also have an approved list of posters? Or is there some sort of "lobbying" process as you referred to it?

The bottom line is that I see no way for new concepts to be recognized by Wikipedia as you have outlined the process. Sort of a "good old boys" club. Presumably you have a personal interest in PRT concepts. Mine is unique in that it doesn't build an alternate road system, but instead recycles our existing road infrastructure. So if anything I believe the concept deserves discussion for it's unique approach. So maybe I should instead be inserting this aspect of the concept into the main body of the article...?

gary

You added links to your own site promoting your own idea, there is no evidence that your idea is considered notable by independent authorities. The way to get it included is to suggest it on Talk with evidence of support from independent authorities. Arguing here is not going to achieve anything beyond pissing me off. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I took your advise and posted my objection on the talk page: [[4]]

gary

[edit] Link to list(s) of HL mods afd discussion

The link to the AfD is wrong, see my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 29#Lists of Half-Life mods. --Pizzahut2 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. You posted a double redlink, so I fixed that. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who opened the deletion review. --Pizzahut2 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You could still have fixed it. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perimeter Mall on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Perimeter Mall. 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. --GGreeneVa 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Gregor Samsa (band)

This:

"Despite the name they will never metamorphose into the Beetles... Guy (Help!) 14:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)"

is the GREATEST. COMMENT. EVER. :) Thanks for the laugh out loud moment, Xoloz 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

lolling here as well. Syrthiss 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Money in Harry Potter

Someone reverted your edit as an IP. I've reverted it back. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi guy! I hats off to do this.

Hi Guy! I hope all is well long time no chat. I typically have been doing some projects at university and stuff. I was wondering if you can give me a quick comment on cplot case I'm working on? I left a question for Fred Bauyer[5] but I haven't received quite an answer I understand. I am being extra vigilant in this case because of the it has come upon me. I was request to be an advocate. After analysing the communications from MONGO and Cplot I placed my observations on mongo's talk page. I personally believe, after studying the previous communications with user:MONGO and asking him some questions, that it was done in a spitfull escalation of rage... with a reactionary level of a cheata and hardly no warning if any. Anyway, I was wondering if you've ever heard anything about arbcom giving permission to remove specific url links because they consider it to be vandalism. [6]. Anyway... I think its going to arbitration and I have never done this before. Eik! --CyclePat 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Pat! Long time no see.

The sites linked are on the Wikimedia blacklist, for a start, and are also all unlinked because they contain attempts to "out" the real identities of editors who choose not to have their identities revealed, and also attack Wikipedia editors and admins by name. Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review, Wikipedia Watch, Encyclopaedia Dramatica and several other sites are banned as attack sites or sites containing attacks.

This was clarified in the findings of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, as well as other places. Fred's edit history shows him unlinking the ED site, after that case.

Any editor linking these sites, and especially linking to pages wihtin these sites which attack other Wikipedians by name, is more than likely to be indefinitely blocked. This is a sensitive issue at present. The very best thing you can do as an advocate in any case involving atemopts to link these sites is to strongly advise the user not to do it. Not to even think about doing it. Tolerance is less than zero.

Cplot is, I think, probably beyond salvation. His edit history contains gross incivility, attacks, apparent legal threats and trolling; his mainspace edits, such as they are, are marked by profound bias, original research, disruption and not much of any merit I can see. He has also used sockpuppets to evade blocks. If taken to ArbCom I owuld anticipate a speedy endorsement of his indefinite block.

Does this answer your questions? Guy (Help!) 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Guy! Yup! It's pretty clear. Well actually the entire situation isn't pretty clear for me because I've got to remain creative in advocating the defensive rights of cplot. But your explanation is helpfull, specially when you've got quite a few contradictory ideas. I think I, may need to start an arbcom. It just feels like everyone is picking on cplot. Seriously, we've had more stressful times arguing about article content. In this case it felt, (though I'm from the outside), like one strike... you're out! hum... anyway! I'm still got a couple idea in my mind which I'm going to have to think about. (Encyclopedia Dramatica can't be linked too... urls even to the main page can be removed from anywhere... humm.... what about if there was an article on that... anyway indeed contreversial and I really think we have some work to do if that's the case. Update WP:VAND, (because that would be considered vandlism)... OH boy! Is anyone planing to appeal the arbcom decision? It seems to directly contradict wikirules for WP:VAND) Anyway... wishing you a Merry Christmas Early! Best wishes and thank you again for the help. --CyclePat 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more about disruption than vandalism, I think, and also harassment. There is no article on ED and there is unlikely to be one any time soon, we had a long and bitter debate about that and that was part of the problem for MONGO, the drama queens were not happy about it. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I am generally for including and keeping most everything including the historical disputes between editors. But this deletions was perfectly on the mark. Just stopped by to say Kudos for such a clear eyesight on the most essential part of that mess. --Irpen 09:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see the need to feed the troll in this case, he should take it to WP:DR if he's really that intent (but will almost certainly be wasting his time). Guy (Help!) 09:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Piquepaille

I left a comment on the talk page asking that it be unWP:SALTed, but was told to take this to deletion review. Since you were the protecting admin, I figured it'd be quicker to ask you to unprotect it and take off the notice directly before I take it there. There's no reason to protect it as deleted, all the vandalism was over almost a year and a half ago. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No objection in principle, but do you have proposed content to drop in? Or some other reason? It was a redirect to Slashdot for a while, but that was deleted by request. The deletion log looks like this:

• 22:55, September 30, 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (empty)
• 07:48, July 5, 2005 Moncrief (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (content was: '{{db|vanity nonsense}}Roland Piquepaille is a fellow who makes a lot of money on ads by getting his crappy stories linked constantly on Slashdot.')
• 16:24, February 11, 2005 Fredrik (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (rant about censoring)
• 15:28, February 11, 2005 Jni (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (content was: 'this article got deleted')
• 20:33, February 10, 2005 Christopher Mahan (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (Copy and paste job from a slashdot rant.)
• 06:13, January 21, 2005 SimonP (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (listed on VfD, votes 5-1 in favour of deletion)

That's a lot of trolling and the history shows some pretty blatant WP:LIVING violations, albeit some time back. DRV would not be necessary, IMO, if we had an unambiguously good article to put in place, but thus far I don't see one and if we don't have a good article to put in place I think salting may still be appropriate due to past abuse. Yes, I know I'm being overcautious :-) If you have some decent content to go in I have no problem at all with removing the salt. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

His name gets 375,000 google hits (vs. <1,000 when it got killed on VFD), so I'm sure we can get something on him. I don't have an article to drop in immediately, but it seems much more likely that it'll get a good article rather than vandalism if unprotected to allow it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds plausible. I have removed the salt, please create at least a valid stub. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

I'm glad you came ot the same conclusion as me about that vandalism report. You beat me to the removal (for the second time). Viridae^Talk 10:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, low-level edit war and likely WP:BLP violation (to say nothing of WP:POINT). The wikilawyering does not help any, either. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Has Spoken? (Re: GNAA DRV)

There are 2 issues here and people seem to be confusing them and assuming there is only one (note that Jimbo's email didn't even cover one of the issues). The 2 issues are: whether or not AFD policy should be followed, whether or not the article should be deleted. I'm pretty sure if another AFD occurs or the current one continues that GNAA will still fail WP:RS and WP:V since mac news blog sites don't seem to count. Thus the real issue here is about process. Process was not properly followed, the AFD was not left up for 5 days. If we let this abuse of process occur uncorrectly it looks poorly upon Wikipedia in general. Essentially wikipedia can't even follow its own process. I realize another AFD will be a repeat of the same but at least it will follow the policies laid out. Essentially by not following process you'll make a martyr out of the GNAA and give everyone more reason to deride how wikipedia is managed. Please don't confuse these 2 seperate issues for one issue. Also Jimbo never touched on the first issue so it is diengenious to claim he has "spoken". --TrollHistorian 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the words of Tony Sidaway, "fuck process". This has had 17 AfDs in every one of which process failed because WP:ILIKEIT was allowed to override WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This time, for the first time ever, someone had the guts to call it right before the puppet theatre got properly underway. One day, when the dust has settled, a few editors might sit down and see if they can gather sufficient material from reliable secondary sources to write a neutral article on this group, but that day is not goign to happen any time soon ecause there is too much baggage for anything approaching a rational discussion. As Jimbo points out, with his usual clarity, nothing approaching a reliable source, and there never has been. Why are we even discussing this? We absolutely do not need to waste more of our time discussing an article which is not going to be re-created because Jimbo has endorsed its deletion. Persuade Jimbo first. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll take "Reasons Sidaway isn't an admin anymore" for $200. Regardless of whatever, closing it early helps nothing in this case, especially. It got to 18 AfDs because no one could be bothered to close it properly before. Doing it wrong an 18th time and then doing it wrong again at the DRV does nothing to convince anyone that the right call was made, even if the end result is the same. Was Jimbo endorsing as God-king? If not, does it matter? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder that it is now December. I moved your closure to the December page from the November page. GRBerry 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. The DRV was opened in November, the November archive is linked at the top of it. I am a simple fellow and I did the simple and obvious thing: I clicked the link. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy -- a few things: one, new items go at the top of the DRV log, not the bottom; two, GR is right to remind you to make sure you put the right entry in the right month; three, editorializing in the log is heavily frowned upon; four, closing a DRV in which you are involved is not good, early closures are not good, and overly-charged closures are not good. If you had waited a day, as process would suggest, I would have closed this calmly as "deletion endorsed", and much less heat would have been generated. A "fuck process" attitude in this case is detrimental to Wikipedia, and not terribly smart, either, unless you want to extend the drama? Fuck to "fucking process", says I; follow the process and the reward is calmness. Emulate Tony Sidaway, and one makes headaches for all. I frown upon the creation of this headache, and am sorry to see that you done it. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the closure. Jimbo won't die if we let folks talk about this for a few more days; your impassioned remarks in closing are unbecoming of the impartiality expected of a closer. Process (aka fairness) matters. Xoloz 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, I think that was foolish. We have wasted several orders of magnitude more time on this than it deserved. I did not !vote in the AfD, and frankly the whole thing is a foul, reeking troll-infested sewer creating division where none need exist. In the end I don't give a flying fuck whether we have an article or not as long as it's sourced (I seem to recall closing at least one of the AfDs as a speedy keep), but which admin is going to undelete this in the face of an unequivocal endorsement from Jimbo? The obsession with process is obscuring a fundamental and apparently irresolvable policy violation: lack of credible sources. If there were any, they would have been cited by now. That was Jimbo's point. So I stand by what I said above; we cannot possibly hope to have a reasonable debate about this now, and the existence of the debate is a festering boil of unreason with the WP:ILIKEIT vs. WP:V/WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR debate being rehashed all over again, the fires liberally fuelled by trolls - which is precisely what GNAA (a group of self-confessed trolls) wants. It is a waste of time, effort, bandwidth and community angst. Let it die quietly and see if, in a few months time, some editors can't write a proper article citing decent sources. I don't see that closing the debate is more detrimental to calmness than that DRV, I honestly don't. The best way to have calm is to take away the cause of the unrest. But hey, that's what you get for trying to help. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You know I like you, Guy, but I ask to examine the language that you use in this case ("festering boil", etc.) There is nothing wrong with speaking so, except that such intense emotion obviously disqualifies one from rendering final judgment on a matter. You care about this case too much to have closed it, and your obvious attachment (evident in the slightly off-kilter way you closed it) was simply too much for me to ignore.

Jimbo has the power of fiat, but others using that power in his name have caused big problems (Userbox Wars, for example). You are correct that this GNAA matter has wasted a lot of time -- 48 more hours for fairness' sake may save us three weeks of drama. Given your attachment, I am sure you see my detachment and process-concern as foolish -- advocates for a cause often think non-advocates are crazy. The fact of the matter is that, given the present state of the !vote (and the certainty that spammers will be discounted), it is all but certain that GNAA will die this time. Giving GNAA's friends 48 hours more to record their feelings, search for sources, or appeal to Jimbo is a GOOD THING. Fairness now means rapid dispensing of foolish trolls later. "Roughshodding" now would mean giving some confused good people (and a lot of trolls) valid reason for appeal later. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The "festering boil" is not about the article, it's about the argument about the article. GNAA are trolls, they thrive on drama, we are letting them get what they want at our expense. I care less than nothing about the article, but I am absolutely convinced that allowing the trolls yet another forum for their manoeuvrings is bad for the project. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see much evidence of that yet. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling? Please explain ANI deletion

I see you have deleted this thread on ANI with the summary of 'trolling'. I'd appreciate explanation how this thread constitutes trolling, particullary as it was started by me: do you accuse me of trolling? I think you should recreate the section, it was a valid and civil attempt to ask community for an input whether a case belongs at PAIN or not, and I see no trolling there (other than somewhat offensive posts by User:Ghirla, but then remove his comments, not the entire thread). PS. I'd have also thought that I'd be notified if a thread I started on ANI was removed due to 'vandalism'. As the matter is rather urgent and important, I do hope for your promot reply. Nonetheless since we all make mistakes (perhaps you meant to remove a different thread?) I am raising this issue on your talk page only and per fellow admin courtesy I am not recreating the thread until I hear from you (although I hope we don't loose much community input due to invisibility of the issue). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

see threads above. I removed it as trolling because, well, it is trolling. I left a comment on your Talk telling you what to do next, and more trolling was not one of the options. Please do be a good chap and pursue the options I outlined. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply (indeed I missed your reply). I respectfully disagree; particularly as my post at ANI is not a request for comment on Ghira's behaviour but whether the thread was rightly removed from PAIN (please note that it was not removed because the reviewer judged it was not a personal attack but because he felt I should pursue a DR instead (the only step left is ArbCom). I am going to restore the thread as it is not trolling (per WP:TROLL) - and as an administrator with a almost two years of history I believe I can recognize trolling when I see it and I don't think I troll. Further, with all due respect, I consider your accusation that I am trolling offensive - especially as I believe trolls should be banned from Wiki. So if you indeed think my post was trolling, let me encourage you to take appopriate steps as one should when dealing with a troll. PS. I also find your accusations that I am doing some kind of 'agitation' puzzling. I was accussed of vandalism and trolling (without any diffs). I reported the issue to PAIN. Is this agitation? Well, it's an agitation to respect WP:CIV and WP:NPA, if you want to call it that. Thank you. PS. Out of curiosity - because I have almost never seen threads deleted in that way - I looked for any policy basis to support your action. Even Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, the strongest essay I could find, noted that only specific, offensive personal attacks should be removed but discussions should be left alone. Therefore you should (as I pointed above) remove particular personal attacks (if you can find any) from my posts, possibly report me to WP:PAIN if you wish - but not censor my request for comment on the PAIN activities.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I was really hoping you and Ghirla could simply settle it like grown-ups. Seems my Mary Poppins tendency has been getting the better of me today. If you want me to attempt to mediate I don't mind, although it will take a while since I'm off singing in a concert tomorrow, but seriously the way the thread was phrased really didn't help. Pouring petrol on the flames is not, in my experience, a great way to put the fire out. Ho hum. My experience with Ghirla, incidentally, has, I think, been pretty good, but limited. However, I will go back and re-read things and see if another reading changes my impression. Do be aware, though, that the word censorship is almost invariably an indication that whatever is supposedly censored really did need to be got rid of. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving this a second thought. Do note there are two matters at here: at ANI I want to ask if the reason for removal of my thread from PAIN was valid (as far as I understand, it was not removed beacuse I failed to satisfy PAIN criteria, but because the reviewer decided I should pursue DR - and refused to comment on whether what I reported (and what User:Constanz agreed with) was indeed a personal attack or not). The second thing which I don't wish to raise on ANI (it's not the right place) is the question of whether Ghirla has been acting incivil - or whether (we all err...) I am overeacting. That issue is however more properly discussed at PAIN, where it cannot be because it was removed on a grounds I don't think are valid... you see my problem? That said, any and and all mediation you can offer would be appreciated (but please - follow the diffs as some editors have a habit of making unfounded statements that are, well, unfounded). PS. Please note that I tried a mediation once and asked Ghirla to participate: his reply and mediator's reply...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You know something? It's not simple. I mean it. It's not going to be sorted by a posting to ANI, for sure, it's not an intervention case. Positng to the noticeboards is only ever going to look like an attempt to recruit people to your side. I think you are best, if Ghirla won't do mediation, to go to ArbCom, because if he won't mediate then there's not much the rest of us can do about it. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

<sad laugh> If it was simple, do you think I'd be dealing with this recurring nightmare for two years? Yes, several users have now suggested ArbCom as the course I should take and perhaps it is the best solution. I still hope that just as WP:3RR violations are quickly dealth with at WP:ANI/3RR, WP:CIV violations can be dealth in a similar way at WP:PAIN, without the need to burden ArbCom. After all, Ghirla has been blocked twice in the past for incivility even before the estabilishment of WP:PAIN - thus my suprise that when I attempted to use this tool it seemed to have misfired - and on a really strange grounds as I noted above (why whether the case in a big picture may be worthy of a further DR would make a particular incivil comment by user(s) involved in the 'big picture case' immune to WP:NPA, WP:PAIN and such? It's as illogical as saying 'this article is now at WP:RFC so we can ignore 3RR. Or am I missing something here?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling again. Ghirla was not blocked for incivility. His first block was based on Elonka's provocative and unsubstantiated complaint to ANI which she made on Piotrus' direct incite. I mean literally! Piotrus came to her page and told her what to do and she did even more as she frivolously titled the thread "Ethnic slur". (I already brought up in the past this Pioutrus' sad habit of inciting others, if possible, to achieve the content opponents' blocks and only when impossible to do this under his own name). Ghirla's second block (that caused so much outcry) was part of the post-Carnildo debacle. Block was made by Tony Sidaway (Admin no more and perhaps not even around anymore) for Ghirla's completely justified response to his typical Sydaway-style provocation. In the aftermath of this whole affair, TS is no more an admin (other things also played a role) and this was followed by the ill-fated, so called "Giano-ArbCom" that did nothing but raised the awareness among the content creating editors of the attempts to hijack the Wikipedia by those who see it as merely a social medium where they can realize their ambitions to be "in charge", the ambition that they never achieved, perhaps, in the real life. Too bad for the Wikipedia that all the non-editing users: IRC fairies, policy discussion activits, wannabe copyright experts, etc. are so badly overrepresented in the Wikipedia space.

JzG was right to see that thread right through and removed it as inappropriate. I wish all imporper attempts to use the boards for not what they are for treated similarly. --Irpen 00:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell. Here we have a situation where Irpen and Ghirla, both of whom I come across reasonably frequently and whose opinions I trust implicitly in complex matters related to certain ethnic and nationalistic issues, tell me that Piotrus is in the wrong, but then this is referenced back to Tony, who evidently disagrees in some respects, but whose judgement I have found in the past to be excellent if often unpopular. This really should go to arbitration, it is unquestionably not a candidate for any of the procedures tried so far, all of which are designed to fix either disputes between willing participants or unambiguous cases. I pronounce myself baffled and await a much more complete description of the history, which I am confident will take many hours to unravel. WP:RFAR is that way, gentlemen, and I await the opening salvoes with interest. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive133#Ghirlandajo for Tony's judgement in this case. --Irpen 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, Tony's reaction was oversized, because following Carnildo's resysopping, a lot of users expressed their disgust (including your servant). At that time, Tony was going completely nuts and blocking people just for the fun of it. And he had to hand in his resign form after (or during) the arbcom case, and rightly so, if you ask me. So Tony's block was inappropriate, as were a few others he made around that time. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it. Nobody comes out of that incident smelling of roses, if you ask me. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur but as for your suggestion of ArbCom, I am afraid this will be a similar situation with lots of bad blood, lots of people going nuts and no action on behalf of ArbCom which will be able to see that this is an attempt of reducing a fierce content and POV disagreement as a Civility issue in order to get an upper hand. Piotrus is not alone who dose it and Ghirla is not an only user against whom this trick is being tried. Take a look at this when I tried to prevent a similar misrepresentation of the issues in case of Piotrus' friends. --Irpen 01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, sorry if this is tiresome. You may delete this thread if it bugs you. Piotrus knows that I was telling the truth but since I was challenged to come up with diffs while I told exactly what I was talking about and I don't believe any of the involved could have possibly forgotten the course of events, I brought about some diffs. Here is the falsely titled thread that shows that several editors did not agree to such mischaracterization. Here are Piotrus' misleading of uninvolved Elonka to act with another post shortly after "Thanking her for taking a stance". And just shortly after Elonka pointing out to Piotrus to the fact that he was not truthful in the followup to that wild ANI thread. Finally, the two sections right after that are also telling. There are other instances of the attempts by this user to achieve the blocks of the content opponents but this would be too much for the talk page of our good friend here. Maybe this is already too much. So, feel free to delete this stuff. --Irpen 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, I used to share your confidence in Tony's judgment, but after his wild blocks and idiosyncratic demeanour in September, I now think, with Grafikm, that it comes and goes. If you want to get caught up (I realize that likely enough you don't, and I'd totally sympathise, just ignore this post if you prefer), the simplest way may be to cast an eye over this rejected request for arbitration against Ghirlandajo from September. Tony's 3-hour "cooling-down" block of Ghirla was fresh then, and is discussed in a number of the statements, together with other relevant matters. Bishonen | talk 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Re Tony, I quite agree. The thing is, I don't see how this dispute can be fixed without some kind of binding decision, or at the very least an extensive review of the evidence. Seems to me that a lot of people have already made up their minds one way or another (and mostly in favour of Ghirla, by the looks of things). One way or another, though, we need some form of closure so that the parties can move on. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say this: careful review of the posts would show that Irpen is far from being entirly correct or neutral. This shows that virtually nobody supported the side I disagreed with and Ghirla agreed with. This thread speaks for itself particularly well, and feel free to ask Elonka for her input. As for this, let me just point interested parties to my reply to Elonka which Irpen forgot to mention. Last, but not least, if 'most users support Ghirla', I will eat my hat without a mustard; one need just to look at Ghirla's RfC to see where 'majority' usualy is. Most users just don't know what we can do, and we don't see ArbCom as the best solution: we don't want a prolific editor like Ghirla blocked pernamently (I completly agree here with Irpen that this would not be best for Wiki), we just want him to stop offending us. Many editors on Wiki learn how to grow thick skin, but there is only so much you can take being called vandal, troll, nationalist and such until you start to wonder what you are doing here... and in the end, if users like me, Halibutt, and dozens of others Ghirla continues to offend leave, I do wonder if Wiki will truly be better off...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I implied it was straightforward, quite the opposite. I don't believe that rehashing the arguments here is going to achieve much, though. I can't fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Woodford

Why did you delete this?

You think it was autobiographical?

Are you serious?

Did you even read the page?

The guy is Head of Investment for Invesco Perpetual, and is managing £12b+. Don't you imagine he has better things to do with his time?

Whether or not you have heard of him is hardly relevant. I dare say most people have not heard of Rusty Foster, yet he seems to warrant an article here.

A man who controls £12 billion is by definition notable.

He is well-known and well-reported, see http://news.google.co.uk/news?num=100&hl=en&q=%22neil%20woodford%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn for evidence. Nssdfdsfds 02:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles created by single purpose accounts and written in excessively florid terms are very often deleted. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a justification. Could you please bring it back. If you think it should be deleted, it would be reasonable to leave it a few days so that a few people could have a chance to read it. It's clearly not spam or whatever, and the man is decidedly notable. Nssdfdsfds 21:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to re-create the article unambiguously establishing notability per WP:BIO from sources, per WP:RS. This discussion is already longer than the deleted text. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Birch

• Tom Birch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tom Birch is NOT the MP for Bromsgrove! Do not add anything that suggests he may be.

I didn't, some other user did. An article states that someone is a sitting MP, that means we don't delete it under WP:CSD criterion A7. I did not fact-check it, because I was patrolling a CSD backlog of some hundreds of articles. Claim of notability = no A7, end of story. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling accusation?

If you think I am a troll, take me to arb com. ATren 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More misrepresentation. What I said was, try asking a more generic question which does not assume as a premise the acceptance of your theory, or else risk being dismissed as a troll. Completely different. Trolls generally don't get taken to ArbCom, we simply block them for disruption or ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See what I mean?

Deng is back. Didn't take long. And he had used that IP to post to some of his "pet" articles before as you can see here. I feel like I'm playing Whack-a-mole when I'm dealing with him. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know just how you feel. I currently have ATren siding with Fys, who I blocked for a completely unambiguous 3RR violation and who has been bleating about it ever since. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you withdraw your unwarranted accusation against the neutrality of my edits, I shall stop "bleating". Removing sourced content is vandalism, and is exempt from 3RR. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! So you're allowed to keep misrepresenting the reason for your block, and editorialise in the ArbCom case that sanctioned you, but I have to apologise for hurting your delicate feelings by noting that you have a stated political bias? No wonder you're in politics! It's a geat technique, though - remove, bit by bit, the 99% of your complaint where you are unambiguously in the wrong, try to find a bit where there might, under some (mis)interpretations be a grain of reason, and then use that to assert that you have won the entire argument. I'm sure it works brilliantly in the council chamber. Just as well Wikipedia is not politics, really. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that my preference for including the Tim Ireland weblog in Anne Milton was motivated by my political views? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts. You were blocked for an unambiguous 3RR violation. Get over it. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You made that accusation. I know you cannot substantiate it and I want you to withdraw it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And I want you to fuck off. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

Without prejudice to any other disagreement that may be happening between us, DO NOT include that link again. You know which one. Wikipedia:Harassment refers. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You what? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (Please reply on this page.)

[edit] Tysons Galleria deletion

You deleted the Tysons Galleria article, as spam. I think it's a legit article on the local geography here. --Howdybob 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a directory, but someone thought it was so created articles on all his company's property portfolio. Feel free to create an article which substantiates the notability of this mall from non-trivial independent reliable sources, but merely existing is not enough, the mall's own website is insufficient as sourcing, the list of stores is a job we can safely leave to the mall website, copying and pasting sections of history from the mall's website is a copyright violation, and per no original research we can't call it "upscale" without an independent source. And so on - I think you get the drift here. I will repeat what I said to those involved with numerous similar articles: if you can produce evidence that this has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (and that specifically excludes reprints of press releases), feel free to create an article based on those. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just liked that I had added the trivia tidbit about the movie "The First Kid" being filmed there, which I saw. (That's not original research; I'm sure there are photos on the website which can be compared to the movie.) --Howdybob 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As trivia goes it's reasonable trivia (if referenced to a reliable source, of course), but it's not much of a claim to notability :-) Guy (Help!) 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before you ask....

... the single purpose account is Sspillers (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) (Sara Spillers, who added nothing but links to a single site, four per article). Guy (Help!) 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you are hardcore. — coelacan talk — 15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe. Recent experience indicates that even undoing links added four per article in alphabetical order by an account with no other contributions will still attract controversy :-/ Guy (Help!) 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Transit Association (ATRA)

It is accurate to describe ATRA as "pro-PRT" in the same sense that it is accurate to describe The Sierra Club as "anti-littering". I would like to think that we have a larger agenda that is limited only by our focus on technical solutions to transportation problems. A significant part of our membership favors other transit alternatives than PRT, such as "Dual mode transit" and "Vactrain". There are also significant differences of opinion among the PRT advocates (wheels/maglev, suspended/supported). Certainly, we are not a monolithic group trying to suppress free thinking.

Broadly, we would like to see a larger freer transportation market that would be more accommodating to using advanced technologies (like maglev, linear motors, automated operations, reserved right-of-ways and right-sized hardware). The total effect is that we favor PRT, but we also favor all the little steps along the way (and beyond) that might solve problems with congestion, and might also help with the degradation of our cities and our environment due to congestion and the current transportation technology choices.

You are right, however, we are an advocacy group with a mission to educate the public. Perhaps it would be helpful to have an article about the organisation? On the other hand, I am unwilling to stir up any controversy by encouraging it. For some people, we seem to be the devil.

I see no benefit to my actual intervention at this point. Even when I try, I often fail the test of NPOV. That is as it should be in my current role.

If I can be of assistance, if I can provide resources or background, please feel free to let me know. We have a lot of history (since 1976) and I represent a prestigious, diverse, and knowledgeable membership. Bob 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (ATRA President)

I can believe all of the above, but in the end ATRA is not neutral in respect of PRT, is it? Everything on the ATRA website indicates pretty uncritical support for PRT. It's fine to include what ATRA says, but we should be clear about your agenda; you are not reviewing transport in the round, but advocating changes in transport. I am actually encouraged by your acknowledgement of your own bias, you would be a welcome contributor on the Talk page of that article. Incidentally, I am a daily user of mixed-mode transportation, and I think the future of transport is bicycle-shaped :-) Guy (Help!) 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help.... J. Edward Anderson.... Avidor 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Guy, why did you delete the image of Elie Wiesel's father in Night (book)? The novel is about the relationship between Weisel and the father. There is no other way to obtain an image, as the father is dead, it has no commercial value, and we have no reason to believe anyone would mind. Also, don't these deletions have to go through images for deletion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was listed as fair use in illustrating the subject of the photograph, but the article in which it was placed was a book by the son of the subject of the photograph. The identity of the original copyright holder is also unclear from the stated upload source. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina

Why did you remove the Ali Sina article? The admin deleting the article specifically asked that it should be recreated using more appropriate sources, and that is what I have just done. -- Karl Meier 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Like I said, it's currently being reviewed, and like you said, a redirect to an article on the faith freedom site would be much less problematic. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that BhaiSaab is using a false claim about the Ali Sina article being deleted for notability issues, to advance his pro-Islam agenda and delete large amounts of valid information on a large amount of articles. He should be blocked for vandalizing these articles. -- Karl Meier 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Or you should engage on Talk and achieve consensus for inclusion, in which case he can't do a thing about it. An editorial dispute between a supporter and an opponent of something is likely to end up in bilateral sanctions, especially if it includes edit-warring. What is needed is relibale secondary sources which point to faithfreedom being a notable or significant critic (or supporter) of the article subject; those sources, taken to Talk, should be sufficient to allow an acceptably neutral consensus treatment of the subject. If BhaiSaab chooses not to participate, or the consensus goes against him and he refuses to accept it, then the case becomes clear and action can be taken without the need to take sides in the dispute (which I do not propose to do). The same, of course, applies to all parties. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina talk page

Could you please restore the Ali Sina talk page with all its history. There are months of debates on that talk page which should not be lost through what I consider a premature page delete.--CltFn 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For values of debate which may include months of trolling and arm-waving arguments :-) I have restored the history, I recommend you don't try to merge it back in, having the history should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RD

Sorry I ve been away for a short time and have only just noticed this post. I believed I had responded to all the criticisms. To which behaviour do you refer?--Light current 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any unaddressed issues with posts I have recently made?--Light current 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just reminding you. The issue is live on the admin noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Im acutely aware of that. Im trying not to aggravate anybody!--Light current 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jolly good. Carry on, then, there's an encyclopaedia to build!  :-) Guy (Help!) 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

THanks for your concern! --Light current 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidacy withdrawn?

I'm a little bit disappointed to see that you withdrew from the ArbCom race, especially since you were ahead at the time by about 10 votes and had a pretty good chance of election. It's probably pointless to try to convince you to change your mind, but I will say I think you would have been a good arbitrator and hope you run again next year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, the clinching argument for me was Cryptic, an editor whose judgement I have always respected immensely. Deals poorly with trolls sums it up perfectly, the discussions on the questions for the candidate and the vote page were completely dominated by "let's ignore the 99% of good stuff and focus on the 1% which could, with a stretch of the imagination, be portrayed as bad". If I had responded better to the pro-PRT puffery on personal rapid transit, ATren would not be able to make so much play out of the spurious assertion that I was in some way conflicted (the fact that I am a huge fan of alternative transportation is not given in evidence, for example). Ditto Fys, who I should simply have told to go away rather than debating his ridiculous bluster. A block endorsed by multiple other admins is not a controversial block, and even if it were, it would not matter at all unless people are determined to make it matter. Do you see ArbCom making much of that particular block? I don't. It was getting sucked into his self-justifying trolling which caused the problem. But even that was a trivial thing compared with getting sucked in again in the election process. The right answer is: you are entitled to your view, I beg to differ. So. The problem is that I want to persuade people to accept things which they plainly have no intention of accepting, however reasonable, however many people tell them the same thing. The solution with these people is to learn to disengage. You'd have thought that years of Usenet participation would teach this, but of course what happened was I got sucked into Usenet mode, and Wikipedia is not Usenet. That was a fundamentally bad call. I will defend my edits to personal rapid transit, my block of Fys, my deletion of Mega Society, right up to ArbCom if need be, but I cannot in good faith fail to put my hands up to being royally trolled. That would have been a huge problem had I been elected, so fair play to the trolls for serving a purpose for once.

I only put myself forward in the first place because I could not see enough candidates on the list who I would support unequivocally, and some I would oppose to the bitter end; thankfully there are now some more excellent candidates, certainly better than I would ever have been. It would be nice to have time to consider rather than wrestling in the mudpits, but in the end I must enjoy the wrestling or I wouldn't do it, I guess, and not many people have called into question my abilities as an admin (none I can think of whose opinion I value, anyway), so I'll go on doing what I do and most people seem to want me to continue doing.

Not that I wasn't grateful for the support votes I got, it gives me a warm feeling I've not had since hitting WP:100. It's easy to plug away in blissful ignorance of what people think of you, and good to know that even Cryptic's opposition was reluctant, so I hope he doesn't think me an irredeemable case :-) I do intend to spend more time on longer-term abuses, and to that end have seen a couple of workshop resolutions make the final cut in ArbCom cases. I'll satisfy my desire to sit and ponder by doing more of that I think. Please rest assured that I am pretty sanguine about the whole thing. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. You had my support for your candidacy, but I was never convinced ArbCom was the best and highest use for you. Keep doing what you do best. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, although we need more people like you on ArbCom than what we've got. I'm glad you're keeping positive about it, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear about it. I thought you were one of the best candidates for the job. "Dealing with trolls" (whatever it is he meant by that) isn't one of the major job requirements - it's dedication, determination and the ability to see through all the bullshit that makes up an arbcomm case. I think you are good at figuring out what the issues are, and I think that the arbcomm will be worse off without you. Guettarda 17:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent withdrawal statement. Fast payment, great ebayer, will buy from again, A+++++. Keep your chin up! Love, always, - crz crztalk 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for that, I needed a good giggle :-) Guy (Help!) 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate doing 'me too' posts, but I echo the above. Keep up the good work, and maybe next time around, hm? Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hey. "Me too" too, too. I think I would have described it as "doesn't suffer fools gladly". Which isn't generally a fault -- but set and setting, y'know? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What a pity, I'm sorry to see this. I was impressed by the way you've been dealing with, hrrrrm, I'd better not say, but you know who I mean. You certainly suffered him a lot more patiently than I ever did (not much of a compliment as such). I think you'd have been good in ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

While I've seen you around, I haven't much interacted with you (I think my first discussion with you is directly below), but I just wanted to mention that your introspective comments above have definitely garnered my respect. I haven't read any information about the examples you list above, but I know from my own experience, that for me there's always a fine line between assuming good faith, and not feeding the trolls. Personally, I usually tend to lean too much on AGF, even when it's becoming rather clear that original research or even personal point-of-view is involved in the discussion, so I truly empathise. Presuming you're around next year, I hope you try for it again. The discernment in your comments above lead to me think that I would support such a nom in the future. - jc37 07:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that I return from a short vacation and find that most of the candidates I wanted to vote for at ArbCom have already withdrawn? I'm bummed. -- Donald Albury 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect

Thank you for the notice. I would like to ask a favour as someone with no vested interested in the article. I'd like to demonstrate on a point-by-point basis, that ScienceApologist's assertions are a gross misrepresentation. And I'd like you to decide whose position is accurate. I would do this on the Talk:Wolf_effect page, and no science background will be necessary. Would you agree? --Iantresman 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• That would require the involvement of other editors with much greater experience in the field than I have (I am an engineer, I can understand a scientific argument, but my reading of the RFAR leads me to believe that in the end it will come down to matters abstruse). Plus more eyes is always better. The best way to make that happen is probably through WP:RFC or the science Wikiproject. You need to tread carefully because of your history. I will take part in the debate if I think I can usefuly contribute; article RFC refers to the talk page anyway.

I've started the RFC process. Let the games commence. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR reversion

Since you also reverted such edits of User:38.119.134.181 at Darth Vader, I thought I should bring this anon to your attention again. Based on this user's current contributions, and notices on the adjoining talk page they would seem to be not ceasing in such actions. (Continued disruption...) - jc37 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorted. I'd suggest for faster response try WP:AIV but I don't think that would be especially accurate right now :o) Guy (Help!) 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You cabalist, you!

[edit] Eowbotm

Hi JzG,

I see that you handled the block for User:Eowbotm's sockpuppets on WP:AN/I (for which I am quite grateful = ). Well, he appears to be back as an IP address. This may be worth looking into. Thank you. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railfans gone mad?

Is it just me, or is this a bit much? And yes, it's part of a series. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Needs trimming and merging, I think. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

As per [7] as well as others: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Cat out 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Go away. You have accused me more than once of bad faith nominations without a shred of evidence, and that is unacceptable. Stating that forking commando to a list of celebrities who go commando is an atrocious way of solving the obsessive addition of cruft is absolutely not a personal attack, not least because I didn't even look at who created it or who the obsessive poster of this cruft is. Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism. Note that posting template warnings on the Talk pages of admins may in itself be considered incivil and disruptive, especially when the post in question was on the admin noticeboard and thus available for every admin to see, should they choose to react. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina question

Hello Guy, I've just noticed that in addition to redirecting this deleted article you've restored the history. Out of curiosity, what was your logic for that? Look forward to your response. (→Netscott) 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For DRV purposes. It can be deleted any time now, I think, but there may be GFDL issues (though probably not as Karl rewrote from scratch). Guy (Help!) 08:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experiment proves that Personal Rapid Transit is mainly about politics... not technology

Why else would PRT promoter Mr. Grant (David Gow) who lives in Seattle rush to edit new pages on two MInnesota politicians?[8]. ATren (from Buffalo, NY) has edited the Michele Bachmann page. Three politicians not even mentioned in the PRT article... Amazing coincidence!!!Avidor 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you're surprised we occasionally check on the Bachmann, Olson, and Zimmermann articles, just in case the guy responsible for the "dumpbachmann", "dumpmarkolson" and "greenpartygonebad" blogs decided to use those articles to spread his anti-PRT message? And this is somehow "proof" about something PRT-related?

By the way, I found out about the Olson/Zimmermann articles by looking at your contributions. I didn't comment on them because they looked OK to me, nothing really inflammatory or inaccurate. Mr Grant explicitly complimented you on your relatively NPOV presentation, and only requested a few clarifications on sources. What's your beef? ATren 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: it seems Mr Grant did do some editing to the Olson article - he basically removed the word "unproven" before PRT and added a list of bills sponsored by Olson. Now, how does this indicate a conspiracy? ATren 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You left out Gow casting doubt on Olson's history of abusing his staff[9]... the Star Tribune article he cites is wrong. Olson did throw a typewriter at a secretary in his first term and Olson got into trouble for abusing staff years later... Olson... Bachmann... Zimmermann... PRT promoters sure are an interesting bunch... you'd think they'd get a mention in the PRT article.... incidentally, I think you gave Bill James a raw deal - There was a story about J-Pods in the Star Tribune and on Fox Television. Just because Bill James made his prototype in his garage using duct tape and plywood doesn't mean you should keep him out of the article. Does Unimodal have a prototype? How about Tritrack? I'll bet Tritrack never got on Fox Television.Avidor 06:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So, Mr Grant adds sourced content about Olson's domestic violence charge... and this "proves that PRT is mainly about politics"? ATren 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course! Why else would your esteemed Advanced Transit Assoc. cite the expert opinion of now convicted felon Dean Zimmermann(and installer of bathroom fixtures) on its website[10] ...But, I'm poking a sharp stick at the over-inflated optimism of gadget invention that is at the core of the cult worship of technology (that is also at the geeky heart of Wikipedia). Nevermind that PRT, like perpetual motion machines and cold fusion are impossible fantasies... thirty-plus years of failure are only more reason to sing as the wacky inventors do in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang "from the ashes of disaster grow the roses of success!!!"[11] (there really should be a link to that video on the PRT page)Avidor 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Bob Dunning, ATRA Chairman is helping with the PRT page[12][13]When the troubled Rep. Mark Olson insisted last session that ATRA be consulted on the Central Corridor, he was nearly laughed off the floor[14]Avidor 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out this fact: neither Mr Grant nor I had any major gripes about Avidor's recent contribitions to the Olson and Zimmermann articles, and in fact Mr Grant's participation on those articles was purely constructive. So really, all that is actually proven in this so called "experiment" is that Mr Grant and I have no problem with Avidor the person - only his disinformation campaign. When he sticks to the facts and acts in good faith, we have no problem with his activities (neither here nor off-wiki). For me, it's never been personal.

Avidor, perhaps going forward we can see more of the constructive edits you've made on Olson and Zimmermann, and less of the hyperbole you display in this thread? ATren 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

J. Edward Anderson...Avidor 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not bad for a first cut. I haven't read it thoroughly, but it seems pretty neutral. There are a few things I might change (the quotes section probably should be moved to Wikiquote, and there may be a few parts that should be toned down) so don't get offended if I edit it in the next few days.

I'm not sure if Anderson is notable enough for an article, though. JzG, what do you think?ATren 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General

Is the merge/rename/compliation they have performed here per deletion process policy? Since people are now hurling accusations of bad faith in all directions, I am reluctant to comment on the propriety of this, but it feel so ... gamey.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If they had fixed the fundamental problem, instead of just citing even more original media, I'd be happy, but no. The new article still relies entirely on original media. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

laughs in amusment I've been RfC'd by Cool Cat for incivility and disruption. And being a deltionist. My irony alert has runneth over. More to the point, he's jerked down the AfD notice again. Husnock , at least, seems to be editing in good faith (and as fast as he can) to find at least some kind of sourcing for things. I'm more concerned about the precident this kind of tapdancing will set for other deletions. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOS TrekMUSE

Um, you meant to put that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOS TrekMUSE (2nd nomination), right? Morwen - Talk 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are so right. My inbound spam filter has just gone bang and all hell has broken loose in RL. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist

I feel like I'm telling tales, but I feel that ScienceApologist's behaviour has demonstrably failed to meet those standards described in the recent Arbitration case,[15]

• In the discussions on the Wolf effect, I've just been called a "bean counter",[16]
• In another discussion on William G. Tifft, I've just been called a liar,[17]
• He's also confirmed that those who model quasars are the "ultimate authority over what is significant" and he's "not budging from that position", when the Arbitration case noted that he should "respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science" [18]
• I also note that he's now trying to remove the Wolf effect from the Redshift article,[19], again in defiance of the Arbitration case.
• I don't think I'm being aggressive, or unreasonable myself, and am providing sufficient verifiable, reliable sources.
• This is in additional to ScienceApologist's original complain against me, where he took my peer reviewed sources, and deprecated a number of researchers as "a self-employed crystal technician" and "employee of Xerox Corp", again noted in the arbitration case,[20]. --Iantresman 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

CC. Case Arbitrator Fred Bauer.

• I will look at this when I have more time (I am in the middle of a bit of a crisis right now) but I will repeat what I have said before, the two of you disagree so vehemently on so many things that it is going to require immense effort on both your parts to be at all productive on the same article, and that effort is going to have to start with deciding not to rise to the bait. I appreciate that you are not happy about this, and if SA is removing stuff wholesale, and not debating them on Talk, you may need to ask him nicely if he wouldn't mind taking them to Talk, or maybe collecting all of them in a monster RFC, but SA is acting in what must be assumed to be good faith based on his assessment of policy, which assessment is in general correct per the ArbCom case. So while his style may be aggressive, his actions may well be acceptable, as long as he does not go too far. Take a deep breath and remember there is no deadline, in time we can hopefully come to some kind of mutually acceptable resolution. And if not, well, at least we should be able to demonstrate that we tried our damndest, no? I suggest you do something else for a while, or maybe collect together the disputed statements and begin the debate on Talk. Remember, if your actions are unambiguously in line with the outcomes of the ArbCom case (discuss, do not disrupt, remain calm and civil) you are much more likely to get your way, or at least some part of it. Above all, resist the temptation to play the man instead of the ball. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom elections

• Support: sadly, you've had to withdraw due to some minor indiscretions. Alas, such is politics! David Mestel^(Talk) 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No worries!

Anytime, Guy. Just remember, you're only mortal. :P -- saberwyn 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• You really get around, don't you? -- saberwyn 11:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't feel like it - CSD - AFD - DRV - AN - repeat :-) Guy (Help!) 12:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My article

I'm notable. And I've an inalienable right to write about myself on here. I'll see you in court if you keep this malarky of deleting my stuff up. Stop smoking waccy baccy, and get back to the real world. Sheesh, geez louise, will you stop being an idiot already?? --Leonalewis 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• WP:NLT. Thank you and goodnight. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While the editor in question was clearly uncivil (and particularly with the legal threat above), I think the subject of article Leona-Louise Lewis is indeed notable. She's one of the three finalists in The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3, whose winner will be announced December 20. That seems to guarantee public interest at least until then, and possibly thereafter, particularly with the controversy over another finalist's claim that the final contest has been rigged in her (LLL's) favor. May I request that you restore the article, even if you leave the editor blocked? Thank you. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 14:36, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I have redirected it as with Leona Lewis where, amazingly, someone seems to have spent some time trying to post an inflated article., I wonder who that could possibly have been? :o) Guy (Help!) 14:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of different people, including latterly 86.42.7.117 in Dublin, who seems to have made many other music-related edits, while Lewis is English, so that doesn't seem to have been a vanity page, more like a true wiki collaboration of fans. It was changed to a redirect while Lewis was still one of a crowd of contestants. Will that reason change now that she's one of three finalists? Or if she wins? (Last year's winner has his own page; so does one of the other current finalists; both are longer than the LL article at its most "inflated", and I haven't seen the LLL version to compare them.) I think the deletion-or-redirect of the LL/LLL articles could have waited until Lewis is eliminated (if that happens), since in the meantime there will be many contest-watchers wanting to learn about the contestants, as with the equivalent US program American Idol. Jumping the gun seems like an assertion that (a) few people would be interested in the current finalists – unlikely – or (b) she's already a loser – a crystal-ball reading. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:05, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Contest-watchers can look at the show's website, where they will get more, and more up-to-date, information. I think we'll comfortably have this sorted out before the publication deadline. There being none, and all... Guy (Help!) 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair warning: I'll hold you to that exact deadline, using the most modern timekeeping technology. But let's at least have a decision before the sun sets opposite the Heel Stone, as by then the contest will be over.

Oh, and per discussion with Onorem, I suspect the Leonalewis you blocked was an imposter. What with arson and leg-shaving, the Leona-Louise Lewis article (which I never saw) sounds like a hoax. The fan-written Leona Lewis article, however, was straightforward. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 17:40, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

All of which is entirely plausible. Is it midsummer yet? We'd better shovel the snow off the stone and find out... My preference in all such cases is to let the dust settle and then quietly decide what to do about it. If she wins and gets a recording deal, it's probably a shoo-in, so it seems pointless to argue in advance of an event that is, after all, only days away. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barb Biggs Speedy Delete

JzG, please note, wp:speedy states:

Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted per CSD A1 because it gives no context about the subject.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the page was deleted, but it seems you violated protocol by flagging it the way you did. I just had a similiar issue on an article I had flagged.Alan.ca 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I userfied it to user:Barbbiggs. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Con Artist on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wiki Con Artist. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Note that "An editor" means me, but the template takes no account of that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more on ArbCom elections

Today at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote#Expansion Jimbo Wales suggested that those who were over 50%, but had dropped out, might consider jumping back in. He thinks ArbCom may be expanding.

I am relatively new to this place, and was using the required background reading for these elections as a sort of education by fire. I thought you were aggressive as an admin, but that you were taking on tough tasks. I was still thinking when you dropped out, but leaning towards supporting you.

I understood you dropping out, since you were hovering below 60%. But in light of this hint of expansion of we-don't-know-what size, maybe you want to reconsider? Certainly standing for election is a service to the community in and of itself. Almost every candidate has generated some discussion of value. And while in the end only a few will be chosen, most will still have accomplished something positive. Would you be willing to return the decision to the community? Jd2718 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting question. The real issue here, is, can I resist wrestling with trolls? And if I think I can, does the community agree? Hmmm.

The question is, are we going to be short of active arbs? Past experience shows that I am pretty active, and I don't see me being MONGOed because in the end I usually (with a small number of exceptions) manage to walk away. I don't care that much what other people think of me. I am still concerned about the frivolous objection from ATren, based on a misunderstanding of my role in a content dispute in which I have not been more than trivially active for ages. If people are genuinely prepared to take the word of someone who was, then at least, a single-issue contributor, against an me, an admin and wide-ranging contributor, to the extent that they would seriously believe I would fail to recuse in an ArbCom case where I was conflicted in some way, or if they think my enjoyment of pro-cyclist agit-prop would overwhelm my critical judgement to the extent that ATren states ()even ignoring my well-known liking for all forms of non-motor transportation), then I have profound reservations about reopening my candidacy. Was anyone ever in doubt as to the fact that I am an argumentative sod? I do hope not.

The last thing anyone needs is for ArbCom to have people on it who have less than resounding support from the community, excluding malcontents with an agenda like Sugaar. I am mainly concerned here about the presence in the Oppose list of editors whose judgement I think is much better than mine. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should answer why (1) you yourself called it a mediation back then (I have the diff) even though you now say it wasn't and (2) you threatened to lock the article based on a misreading of a single word - it's been 8 months and you still refuse to acknowledge that error. You claim in your candidate statement to be constantly asking yourself if you did the right thing, yet here, in actual practice, you refuse to acknowledge an obvious mistake on your part, a mistake that led you to threaten to block an article, thereby inflaming an already hostile dispute into an all-out war. Not to mention your cavalier attitude about telling people to "fuck off", and calling another editor an "idiot".

Perhaps if you addressed these issues in an honest and forthcoming way (rather than skirting the issue by insinuating that my word is less valid because I'm a supposed "single-issue contributor" - a fact that should be wholly irrelevant) then some of those 50-odd editors who voted against you would be more likely to support you. ATren 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so ridiculously obsessed with a long-ago content dispute in which you have steadfastly refused to admit to any bias in yourself. Now go away and stop trolling, please. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When you bring my name up, I will respond, simple as that. And stop calling me a troll. ATren 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just as soon as you stop trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And your response to my two points above? Conspicuously absent. Again. Am I a troll because I refuse to accept your evasive responses to my questions? Are the dozens of editors who voted against you (many after examining my indisputable evidence) also trolls?

Have you ever considered why you seem so susceptible to trolls? Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophesy: you are so quick to flip the "troll" bit that you frequently drive otherwise good-faith editors to troll-like behavior just to defend themselves. ATren 02:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My response to your two pointlesses above has been given more times than I can recall. The fact that you don't like the answer is your problem, not mine. You have two options: escalate it or drop it. I am through arguing with you about this months-old whine of yours. Go away. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Escalation would be necessary if I believed you should be de-sysopped, which I don't (though there was a time I did - but I've since reconsidered). So I don't feel the need to escalate. However, when you insinuate that you are considering reviving your candidacy, then I will once again demand answers to the questions you never answered (like the issues raised above). It comes down to this: I believe you would make a very poor arbitrator, for all the reasons outlined on the candidacy talk page. People admire you for your admin skills, your intolerance to Wikipedia abuses, and your tireless efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but most of them have never been exposed to you in the context of mediation or dispute resolution - and these are the qualities that are most important for a judicial position like arb com. I, on the other hand, have experienced your mediation (yes JzG, it was a mediation - check the diffs I presented on your voting talk page) and it is that experience (which can best be described as exasperating for all involved) that compells me to vigorously oppose your candidacy for arb com. If this makes me a troll, then so be it - you too are free to escalate if you feel I am trolling. ATren 15:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

People are weird with their votes. Some are voting no on candidates who will exceed 50%, just to make a point (without a link, Fred Bauder says something to that effect on his talk page about his oppose for Paul August). But every "oppose" raises questions. Look, every "support" should raise issues, too, and there was more support than oppose. And once chosen, it's the conduct on the committee that matters, not any of the discussion that came before. I know the negative votes can sting, but like I wrote before, just standing for this election (or approval process is really the better name for it) anyway, just standing for this process, if you can bear the negative stuff, just standing is a service. Jd2718 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship - your comment

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. But we'd better be careful after this. :) Any idea who the poster might be? Newyorkbrad 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, it will be one of the usual suspects I expect. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation CWAL

Thought you might be interested in seeing this: http://www.ghazporkindustrial.com/?P=maggottshow Scott 110 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Already seen it, thanks. Incidentally, please don't link attack sites, this is considered a Really Bad Thing. Yet another of those rules nobody tells you about until you've broken them :-) Guy (Help!) 09:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)