User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the sixth talk archive. See the main archive index here.

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

Contents

Damn, you're fast...

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

Your welcome

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

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

Deletion: Garrett Gilchrist

Hey, um ...

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

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

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

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

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

You gotta laugh

I just refreshed newpages and the top two were:

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

To Jeff: Pay Attention! --Jeff

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

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

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

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

I saw what you did..

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

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

Optical Disc Authoring Software - GEAR Video

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

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

King Bill Winters

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

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

Awesomeness Assistance!

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

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

Speedy

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

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

Deletion of page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparent deletion

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

Frank Caiazzo

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

Deleted FARCs

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

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

Urban Legends: Clear Channel

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

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

Dr. Hilarius

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

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

Giolou

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

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

Orlando Cole

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

The Giolou affair

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

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

Isidor deletion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isidor

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

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

Honda-Tech prod

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

Thanks

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

[Userbox removed]

Poker rake

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

All the Best, MickyTheFIsh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About me...

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

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

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

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

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

multiple blocks

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

Reprodding

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

Apologies

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

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

WP:FARC

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

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

Perhaps he didn't know; perhaps he did.

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

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

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

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

Gee, I sometimes feel that way... I was making a well-intentioned comment. I didn't vote against Spoo (I don't think I did), and I wasn't criticizing it whatsoever, it just seemed this thread was sparked by the Spoo nom, which is why I mentioned it. My comment mainly concerned the "wrong sort" of "elitism", and the idea of editors targetting classes of FA for bad reasons... If you read it from maybe a less defensive posture, you'll see that I was just supplying possibly relevant input. And I was speaking to the thread, which was two people, not directly to you. ("This mess" seems to be the process in action, no, and I'm increasingly in a defensive mode myself as people rapidly take sides and attack each other, no matter how politely.) --Tsavage 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, then, for any misunderstandings. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks. That's kind of civilized. If you're interested, I did, courtesy of Aloan, comment on Spoo. I've copied it so you won't pop more blood vessels by having to view the Bulbasuar document it is part of: Spoo is an entirely differenct article from Bulbasaur. Not knowing spoo from...Adam, I can read the article and come out of it quite well versed in spoo. The concept of "food" being quite clear in advance helps. And that's all there is to it, "fictional food".[[1] It goes on, but about, B. And that's about where I stand on that one... Later on... --Tsavage 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivanova

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

Thanks :)

Blocking of User:Ivan Kricancic

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

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

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

Ant colony

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

Alpha269

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

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

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

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

anon IPs of Young_Zaphod

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

17:01, 16 March 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson blocked "67.165.85.111 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism) [2]

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

The IP 67.165.85.111 has been known to edit with multiple IP's in the 151.201.*.* range as shown in [4]. In his defense, none of his other socks seem to have edited anything for a while, and this is apparently his first edit in 45:20, so he might have assumed it was over with and didn't realize that it was a few hours short still (as far as I can tell, 67.165.85.111 is a home IP, 151.201.*.* is a local computer lab). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Smurrayinchester's RFA

Thank you!
Thank you!

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

Jbamb's block

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

Brandt

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

You take offense.

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

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

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

RfA thanks!

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

Joan of Arc

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

WP:AN/I comment

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

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

Blocking AOL - 195.93.21.130.

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

Cheers

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

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

Copwatch deletion

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

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

Ives Farc

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

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

RfB policy

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

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

B5

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

welcoming

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

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

Marie Ljalková

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

range block

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJeffrey_O._Gustafson_Archive6_bf42.html"