User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the eighth 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

Uptake

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

Thanks

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

Babylon 5

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

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

Andrew Morrow

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

I stand by my remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK

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

Re: Tone

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

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

Very funny...

Loved it. [1] Now I'm wondering if I should ever try and activate it. If it means years of darkness, I may want to hold off a while. ;-) Thanks! --LV (Dark Mark) 14:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Everywhere Girl

Hello,

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

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

Talk:Everywhere Girl

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

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

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

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

User:RJII

I noticed that you were the admin who originally banned user RJ for violating wiki policy. I have since discovered that user Vision Thing is one of the sockpuppets that user RJ [sic] eventually admitted to having (but did not identify) shorty before his departure. Due to the complex nature of the case I did not want to simply post this to [2] because I'm worried that an admin may simply do an IP check and move on without realizing that an IP check would not verify Vision Thing's status as a sockpuppet. If you could take a couple minutes to check my evidence I have compiled and then advise me on the best place to post it, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blahblahblahblahblahblah (talk • contribs).

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

your reversion of my edit

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

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

Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about your comments

Hi, I read this in WP:ANI

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

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

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

Signature.

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

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

Re: Thanks

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

ALSAP done slapped! (Oh Snap!)

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

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

Hey Jeff

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

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

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

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

comment moved from user page

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

31 hour block?

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

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

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

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

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

S-protection of AN/I

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

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

Can you please delete my talk page and restore it?

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

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

Legal Threat

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

Muhammad Ali versus Antonio Inoki recreated

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

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

The deletion of Everywhere Girl

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

Hello

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

User:Kumarrajendran

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

Uncle Ben's

Jeffrey:

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

Best Regards

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

Arbcon

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

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

Bijan (designer)

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

Tagged as speedy A7 and deleted as such. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Because you haven't heard on the subject it gets deleted? The subject is linked to from another page (Givaudan) because he is important enough to be listed along with Calvin Klein, Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs, Ralph Lauren and Hugo Boss on the their website ([4]) and if you'd bothered to look at the link I included ([5] and [6]) there are other reasons for importance. I was working on finding other sources. Wjousts 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so write an article that contains sufficient sources and asserts sufficient notability and you wont have a problem. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
So how about you restore what I did so I don't have to start from stratch? If you'd bothered to look at the Rodeo Drive entry you would have seen Bijan listed amongst the "more famous retailers" on Rodeo Drive. Instead you jump the gun and pissed all over my work in less than an hour because of you ignorance. Thanks a lot. Pull your head out your ass before you make a decision next time. Wjousts 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Bijan (designer) on deletion review: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bijan (designer). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

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

User:Identifycommunication aka User:Eternal Equinox

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

Pierre Rosenstiehl

I did not contribute to the article Pierre Rosenstiehl which you deleted, and have no vested interest in it, but in my view, Rosenstiehl does not really fall under the A7 criterion for a speedy deletion. He is a well-known and respected graph theorist (e.g., [7]). If you still think he is not notable, would you consider restoring the article and putting it up for AfD? I suspect the folks at WikiProject:Mathematics might like to have a look, and maybe some of the experts in that specific area could improve whatever the article's problems were/are. Michael Kinyon 12:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Alm93 and French Canadians

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

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

The New Hampshire Gazette

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

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

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

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

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

Well meaning folks simply not paying attention...

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

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

Heartware (short film) deletion

Hi there,

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Joe

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

Zion Bible College

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

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

Richard Buckle

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

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

Oh dear oh dear

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

Request for help with user creating spam/nonsense articles.

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

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

Deletion of Shadow Falls article

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

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

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

Re:Speedying

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

Talk Page Violations

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

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

Spammer

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

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

ForestH2

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

To be perfectly honest, I seriously, seriously doubt that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJeffrey_O._Gustafson_Archive8_d142.html"