User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...And behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.This is the ninth 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

User Too Cool

Hi,

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

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

edit conflicts make baby jesus cry

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

Ouch.

"The article spoo [...] is a very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion." --Jimbo Wales 14:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

He's wrong about the OR thing. But that still hurts. Makes a guy want to up and quit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly not "original research" in that it is all cited from verifiable sources, but he would have been nearer the mark if he had impuned the reliability of the sources. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What is going on with Babylon 5?

Why all the reverts to Babylon 5? Why was {{protected}} added to the page? Will (Talk - contribs) 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the talk page. And its not protected anymore. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock puppets of "TooCool"

Hey dude, not sure if this even matters to you, but I think I stumbled onto Too Cool's wherabouts. (also known as T00C00L) He is a user you blocked in October, but seems he never left - he just went "IP".

I've found two IP's that he seems to have been using since his block:

He edited a lot of mixed martial arts pages(which i watch) and I've noticed a lot of the same kind of strange edit summaries and general agression twords other editors that was prevalent with the two TooCool's.

Just looking around for a few minutes on the user contributions of both IP's, I see tons of the same kind of articles, mostly regarding MMA, boxing, and pro wrestling. Both IP's also remove users messages form their talk pages, and even each others talk pages. Also a key article is Turntable Timmy, an obscure article that TooCool wrote, and seems to tie these three together.

I searched both IP's at apnic.net and they come back to the same guy in Bangladesh, now I am not sure if it is possible to search the for the IP's of the two "TooCool"'s, but I would bet money that it's the same guy.

I dont know how much of a threat this guy actually is, as most of his stuff probably gets reverted by other editors anyway. But I don't follow pro wrestling or boxing at all, so I only catch some of the MMA stuff. Just thought I'd give you a head's up since you were the one dealing with the blocks on both of these accounts. Thanks -- Skeletor2112 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its the same guy. I'm really busy in Real Life (tm) so don't have the time to monitor his IPs... some of the edits are good, so its really a matter of just monitoring and reverting the bad ones. If it gets to the point where he is actively engaging in edit wars or personal attacks again, let me or another admin know and we'll take care of it. Right now its too early to semi protect anything, and unless there is something specific from the last couple of days you could point out (message removal, incivility, etc.), I will not yet block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats cool, I think he means well, it is just frustrating... I am pretty sure those 2 are the only IP's he uses, and if anything major comes up, I will let you know. Skeletor2112 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Spam

EXTERMINATE!!!
EXTERMINATE!!!

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Identity confirmation

Hi! I've followed the link from m:User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson here. Most probably it is your account but I would sleep more happily if you can provide a confirmation in the opposite direction - from en: to meta:.

I am asking in relation to the vote being invalidated. In theory an imposter could register the same name as yours, so the account meeting the suffrage criteria (en.wp one) should endorse the other (on meta). TIA, Goldie (tell me) 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is I; has been the whole time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A Quick Thanks

Thanks for the welcome-message you gave me; I'm reading the links you referred me to. (Yeah, this is a bit of a throwaway entry, except that I wanted to just let you know your work is appreciated.)

...and at the top of your user-talk page, 'wield' is misspelled? Usually i'd just fix it, but I'm not sure whether it's intentional, occurring as it does next to the words 'administrative cudgel'. Cheers, --Ian Barland Not-just-yeti 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)not-just-yeti

Oh, yes, it is most definitely intentional. Thanks though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

 :D -- Drini 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Emoticons suck. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club of New York

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Phtttltltltltlllllttt! (Header modified by Jeff)

Please do not use Wikipedia to prove a point. Thanks. --Madchester 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. What point was I trying to prove, eh? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Aside from my message to you just now, ho ho. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Madchester 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Phtttltltltltlllllttt! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit the comments of other user on your talk page, w/o their permission. Thanks. --Madchester 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by modifying user comments on personal talk page. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --Madchester 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, jimminy. Looks like we both violated 3RR. For the record, header modification is not comment modification. IMO, naturally. Clarified above, I guess. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, apologies for not giving you a block message, but we kinda blocked each other at the same time (and we both deserved it, too). This all just illustrates what the hell happens when folks don't know how to chill out, which we are both very guilty of in this case. No hard feelings, and I think we can both live with a few hours off, no? If we encounter each other again, than may it be with cooler heads. Good luck with your continued efforts making this Project better. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing a deleted protected wiki page

Hi Jeffrey:

I created a wiki entry and re-created it after deletion, thereby earning a protected deleted status for the entry. Now it's still hanging around and searchable in Wikipedia, but it should be purged altogether since it's autobiographical. My intention was to create a user page, not an encyclopedia entry. Will the Wiki encyclopedia page be removed completely at some point, or will it just hang around forever as a deleted protected page? I have no intention of recreating it now that I understand the differences between user pages, talk pages, and encyclopedia entries. (I doubt anyone else would care to create an entry in my name, either.)

Thanks for your help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Jeff and David -- I took care of it for you. Happy new year, Antandrus (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I deleted that over a year ago. Trippy. Thanks, Antandrus. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus, you are right on. Hope you don't mind that I took autobiographical references out of discussion above.

Image:Picture 029.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Picture 029.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Nv8200p talk 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing talk page warnings

Please see Wikipedia:Removing warnings before threatening me with a block on this. This proposal was rejected via the Village Pump. Therefore, I can do whatever I want with my talk page, just as you can do whatever with yours. Diez2 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo and spoo

Ouch. I thought it was universally loved. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Everybody does love spoo. <Looks around nervously> Anyway, FTR (and as I've said here before), I don't necessarily mind that he isn't fond of the article - he's not nearly the only one, of course. It's that his criticism of the sources is completely and utterly off base. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Careless AfD Spam

EXTERMINATE!!!
EXTERMINATE!!!

An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny Graham, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Graham. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jerry lavoie 05:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Jerry lavoie 05:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. I reverted vandalism once randomly on RC patrol on this article four months ago. "Involved in editing?" You mean well - but use your head before spamming me. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User page bidness

Hey, since you've deleted your user page yet you still edit, people may confuse you with someone who has departed Wikipedia. Perhaps a redirect to your talk page is in order? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Couran Cove Deletion (No challange)

What's going on? I was putting in my reasons for challenging the speedy deletion of the Couran Cove Resort article when you deleted it (the article). The stuff that was already on the Talk page was not the challange --RockerballAustralia 09:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article, although about a year and a half old, is nonetheless about a non-notable resort and reads like an ad. No matter the argument, the article was still getting nuked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in saying that it read like an ad, but I question the non-notability. It gains a mention in this News Ltd article. So there is some noteability for the resort --RockerballAustralia 10:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Not relevant. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Not Relevent? How So? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RockerballAustralia (talk • contribs) 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

A newspaper article or two is not a metric for notability. I've been in the papers. I thankfully do not have an article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point --RockerballAustralia 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course. I made it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Now your just showing off --RockerballAustralia 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If you got it, flaunt it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
True --RockerballAustralia 10:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you!

Thank you for this. Much appreciated! --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to overturn Speedy Deletion of PMRA page

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Problems with the Pest Managment Regulatory Agency (PMRA). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NorthMiamiBeach 12:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bought Science

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bought Science. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NorthMiamiBeach 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Some dude's band or something

so Im confused, you deleted the thing I was working on??

Im brand new to this site,

I was editing a blurb on my band that was poorly written, and now there is only part of the page up? is there any way to get it back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kirbydinglebear (talk • contribs).

No. While I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about, the page was likely deleted because the subjects of the article do not meet our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place to write a "blurb" on your band. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Extra Action Marching Band - can you guide me to your "our notability guidelines".--Dirty tuba 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is one place. There are many more but this one applies to you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Extra Action Marching Band has toured internationally (Canada, holland, germany, The Czech Republic, Hungry and Serbia). They have released two CD on their own independent label (record labels are a thing of the past and should not be used as a ruler for success). Extra Action has played a long list of notable venues including Hollywood Bowl, The knitting Factory, and The Fillmore, been written up in Spin Magazine, The Wire, and most recently in Dazed & Confused

I could go on, but I was in the middle of putting this all up when you deleted it. can I at least get the text back somehow?

I just thought that since Hungry March Band had an article up, we should have one too.--Dirty tuba 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First, "record labels are a thing of the past and should not be used as a ruler for success" is not a valid argument, not by a long shot. Second, it is not unusual for marching bands, even local high school marching bands (as was mine many years ago), to be invited to events across the nation. Third, I stand by my deletion. I am not the only one to delete the article, either, as the log clearly attests. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Link Community School deletion

An AfD was also opened for it; could you close it now that you've speedy-deleted the article? DMacks 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Right Spot

Thank you for the welcome and the very usefull links. Epameinondas 12:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary?

I was looking at your recent page split of List of recurring non-robot characters from Futurama into human and not human sections, which I fully agree was a good idea, and saw that during the split you also removed some human recurring characters (specifically the Waterfall family) from the list of recurring characters. I suppose I should assume good faith and believe you removed them accidentally (though you're an admin so I assume you're more capable than that) and if you did I apologize but I thought you should know that this section has been restored to the article so if you have a legitimate problem with the section please bring it up for discussion on the talk page at List of recurring human characters from Futurama. Thanks. Stardust8212 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall - with nine thousand edits and in the middle of pretty large split, I'm bound to make a mistake. But do not accuse me of intentionally mis-using edit summaries. This breach of AGF on your behalf is frankly appalling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
As previously stated I thought it might have been a mistake and I do apologize that I was incorrect I was actually trying to be polite. The section that was deleted just happened to be a previously debated section which some editors felt did not have a place in that article. As such and knowing nothing of your personal standing on the issue I thought it would be appropriate to inform you that the section was restored so that if you did care (which I now see you didn't) you could make your opinion heard. I also didn't mean to imply you intentionally mis-used the edit summary, though upon rereading it it does sound rather harsh. I guess the next time I want to be helpful I'll just remember this incident and let everyone fend for themselves. Stardust8212 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"Misleading edit summary"; "I suppose I should assume good faith..."; "I assume you're more capable than that..."
How else was I supposed to take your comments? I do not react kindly when someone calls my integrity into question. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Page

I think you can safely block RDH now. Perhaps you should do d delete protect? Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)07:47, Wednesday, January 31 '07

I've blocked him. Thats enough. And delete-protect would defeat the purpose of the glorious red link. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! It's not red to me! To me it's blue, due to my custom monobook, lol. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)09:52, Wednesday, January 31 '07

Hyperbole

Hello,

Your reversal of a qualified closure of an out-of-process WP:AFD is surprising and disappointing. Your actions taken in support of an out-of-process WP:AFD are themselves out-of-process, and your removal of qualified warnings to an anonymous user engaged in gaming the system beyond a shadow of possible assumption of good faith are difficult to understand.

You need to recuse yourself from actioning this issue further if you want your actions to withstand scrutiny. If you do, I will leave this issue to the community until such a time as this interaction can be arbitrated.

I want to believe that you mean well, but your baffling encouragement of an unusually wiki-knowledgeable IP-hopping anonymous user is unusual. Please take a moment to step back and breathe.

Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia.

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-12 10:39Z

I will not recuse myself. The AfD is appropriate. Administrative decisions (including mine) take precedence over a non-admin's in AfD closure. Your accusations are also out of line. As an administrator with two years of service, I have a pretty good idea what I'm doing. In any event, I have asked for review from other admins, whose opinion I will adhere to. You are not an admin, please to try to be one where one is needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I regret that you have refused a suggestion of mutual disengagement, one of the recommended steps in dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I solicit your participation in informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal, the next step in resolving disagreements in procellous situations. Should you agree, we'll go from there. It's a reasonably quiet, non-messy process, when adhered to.
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-12 10:52Z
Nope. The issue has been brought up with other administrators and I will defer to their opinion in this matter as it is an administrative issue, and/or one that involves an administrative interpretation of policy. There is no dispute between you and I, but a disagreement on administrative policy which is being discussed amongst admins now. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Your deference to their opinion in a specific policy matter has no bearing on your actions taken in support of your interpretation of that policy matter. Regardless of the decision on the matter of policy, a decision on the matter of fact -- actions -- is indicated. Since you've declined the next step in dispute resolution, I regret that the subsequent recourse recommended by Wikipedia is WP:RFC. I will wait at least 24 hours for the WP:AN/I discussion to progress, and to give you an opportunity to change your mind, before actioning this.
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-12 11:14Z
Knock yourself out. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Your use vulgarity in edit summaries is inappropriate, and offensive. While Wikipedia is not censored, please be WP:CIVIL.

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-12 11:22Z

Bugger is a vulgarity? Aw, shit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment on my talkpage. It will be interesting to see what the consensus at WP:ANI is. I don't think this is the clearest policy area. WjBscribe 10:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra Action Marching Band again

No Answer to street bands? does that mean I can go ahead and put the extra action marching band page back up? --Dirty tuba 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the message on your talk page that I have coincidentally just left you on the subject. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Waugh

Dear Mr Gustafson,

Please feel free to delete my entry on Alexander Waugh as it is indeed written by the subject of the article. I tried to make it an entirely neutral list of published facts, but rules is rules so delete away.

As to my small corrections and additions to the entries on Arthur Waugh, Evelyn Waugh and Auberon Waugh I would suggest you leave them. I might be related to these people but my attitude to them remains impartial and I am the keeper of the biggest archive about them and know more about them than any one else in the world.

By the way I wrote the article for the New Dictionary of National Biography on Arthur Waugh so I hope that which was good enough for them would be good enough for you.

Ksplam,

Alexander Waugh

Actually, it appears that community consensus is leaning towards keeping your article, so it will likely stay as, even though the drafting of the article was in violation of our standards, the subject of the article (you) is notable enough for inclusion.
As for your other contributions, some I have kept as they are factual and neutral. Others I have reverted because they were precisely the opposite, especially the edits where you removed sourced material critical of one of your family members. It is never a good idea to remove sourced material here without first discussing it on the article's talk page, especially if you have a stake in the outcome or a clear conflict of interest.
We welcome your further contributions to our project, we just ask that prospective editors familiarize themselves with our policies, especially when it comes to matters of conflict of interest. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to ask. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Auberon Waugh

[Moved from my user page. -Jeff]

Dear Mr Gustafson,

Thank you for maintaining the stub I created and, once again, I apologise for not having read all the regulations before creating it.

I shall not attempt to re-edit the article "Auberon Waugh" from which I deleted a paragraph that has since been reinstated. I would however draw to your attention elements in that paragraph which are innaccurate and which, in my view, fail to conform to your high standards of neutrality. The paragraph in question reads:

"When US and British tobacco company documents were released for public information following the Master Settlement Agreement, it turned out that Waugh and his close friend Bernard Levin (of the London Times) had both been generously compensated through secret channels for promoting the "nanny state" idea. It was part of their flamboyant anti-establishment façades (both were deeply conservative) and it earned them good speaking and writing fees from various companies and trade organisations. [7] The tobacco industry saw these prominent writers and speakers as a way to build opposition to the banning of tobacco ads.[8], [9] , [10], [11], [12], [13] Newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch (a director of Philip Morris) had also encouraged and assisted in this plan."

First of all Bernard Levin was not a close a friend of Auberon Waugh. There is a small edgy correspondence between them dating from the early 1970s, but they broke off contact shortly afterwards. When I saw them at a concert in Taunton in 1991, Bernard Levin refused to shake AW's hand. The clear implication of the above paragraph is that Auberon Waugh was paid by tobacco companies to promote opinions which he naturally did not hold, that his pro-smoking campaigns were a "facade." Despite having only one lung Auberon Waugh smoked all his life and was a vigorous defender of anyone's right to smoke where and whenever he wanted. At his school in Downside he threatened to take the headmaster and several school prefects to court for busting his smoking den - a cottage he had rented in the village. Because of his pro-smoking views his writing came to the attention of the tobacco companies who naturally feted him as one of their allies in battle. He was taken on several occasions to the Wimbledon Tennis Tournament by Patrick Sheahy (then Chariman of BAT). There was nothing "secret" about this. Your contributor offers no evidence to support the loaded claim that he was "generously compensated through secret channels for promoting the "nanny state" idea." Auberon Waugh was a well known opponent of the Nanny State long before he had any contact with any tobacco moguls. To suggest that his opposition to the Nanny State was merely a mask he was willing to wear in return for secret payments from the tobacco industry is as ridiculous as it is innaccurate. Lastly I would like to draw your attention to the final sentence of the above paragraph. It may, or may not be correct but in any case it has nothing to do with the biog of Auberon Waugh. A quick scan through the references given will, I am sure, soon convince you of this point.

With thanks, sincerely,

Alexander Waugh

In response to your concerns about the factual accuracy of the article noted above, I have removed the section that you objected to, as the first link provided does not directly name Waugh, thus putting all of those claims into question. Thanks for your time and patience in clearing that up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Denied.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of G.ho.st. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 213.6.9.14 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversation about my talk page

Hey...I'm the guy whose talk page you deleted a while ago. I saw the conversation that you and some Cassiopedia users had about it. I read where one of them said it reminded them of a numbers station. I didn't even know what a numbers station was until I read the article about it.

If you're curious, all it was was a daily update on 2 stock market indexes we created and we used our Wikipedia talk pages to do the updates. In hindsight, we shouldn't have been doing so. We would post each day how the indexes traded up or down that day. In essence, we made up our own "S&P 500" or "Dow Jones Industrial Average." Considering that someone said it reminded them of a numbers station, I didn't want anyone to think we were doing some kind of secret communication or anything like that :) From reading the archives in detail, it should have been obvious that we were talking about the stock market; the "real" stock market and the indexes we each made up. Clinevol98 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally could have cared less what the specifics of the conversations were about, and I did not believe that they were remotely associated with number station-like activity. The only issue was, and still is, as I made rather clear at the time, that the content and use was in violation of our user talk page policies, thus the deletions. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, and I'm not here trying to get the talk pages back. I just thought it was humorous that they reminded someone of secret, coded radio messages and thought it might be necessary to explain what was going on. Clinevol98 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fresh AfD

It might be worth contacting those who voted in the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu to let them know the debate has been reset. Not everyone watchlists AfD debates they vote in...WjBscribe 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Working on it. I keep having to shuffle around comments which is slowing me down. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't want to ahead and do it myself as I wasn't sure quite how drastic a restart you wanted it to be. But yeah, I can imagine that having to babysit an AfD process would be rather a distraction. WjBscribe 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, all I did was comment that I was blocking TOR proxies per WP:OP. I really have no opinion on the AfD itself, though I'm looking into your latest ANI report.--Isotope23 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, cool, thanks. Sorry, btw, I just spammed everyone that commented either way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

May I suggest you redirect your userpage to your talkpage? That way when people click your signature it will take them straight there. Regards, KazakhPol 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about erecting a giant flashing neon sign that says "No I Do Not Want A User Page and that Includes Redirects And There Have Literally Been More Than A Dozen People To Ask Me That Same Question."
You know, instead of a user page, of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Little Mikey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. --ALoan (Talk) 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

I see your very busy reverting thousands of edits by one particular user. Yet I feel they should be blocked anyway as if you read the wikipedia username policy you will find that they are using a name with non-latin characters; Which is not allowed. Retiono Virginian 14:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

They should be given a chance to rename themselves first. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the username policy has been changed recently, because of the upcoming single login system. Latin is no longer required. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 !

Jeffery, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar in apprechiation of your amazing vandal fighting. Keep it up! Kamope·?·! Sign! 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha!

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ebony Anpu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Captain Barrett 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:GordonWatts

Gordon Watts (talk • contribs) -- a prime POV pusher if there ever was one -- is going to ridiculous -- even disruptive -- lengths to justify the return of links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage sites at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. The insanely long Wikilawyering comparison of his site and the New York Times as somehow being equivalent -- just the latest in a series of convoluted and tireless rationalizations can be found at the Talk page) and has to be read to be believed. He seems incapable of taking a hint from literally everyone who's commented (with the exception of Patsw (talk • contribs), who briefly resurfaced after a long absence from the Terri Schiavo pages but doesn't seem to have re-returned after his initial foray).

Given Gordon's complete inability to understand basic guidelines, policies, or consensus, and his unflagging persistence, I have NO idea what would work, but perhaps you can take a shot at it.

P.S.: I'm leaving this message on a few other admins' pages (JzG, Musical Linguist, JoshZ, maybe a few others, I dunno), and maybe they can try figuring something out, too. --Calton | Talk 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon is beyond help and should have been banned a long time ago. I first ran into his quackery a year and a half ago when he repeatedly tried to get the Terri Schiavo article featured, and the general patterns are the same. As he has made himself established just through force of will, and as he generally doesn't blatantly violate policy, a block won't stand, and he's got too many supporters of his POV and/or fanatical obsession with a dead woman to see a community ban stick. RfC is a good idea, and maybe arbcom would take it up. On the far end, he's banned, on the near end, maybe he's just blocked from the Terri Schiavo article. Either way, arbcom will have their work cut out for them, to levels beyond even the arbcom process's historical levels of holy-shittery.
I am of the opinion that he just doesn't Get It, and never will; he is one of our most sheerly disruptive editors, and he has exhausted the community's patience to an extreme degree. I personally won't get involved with him - there are only so many nut jobs I can babysit, and he would probably completely engulf my editing time for far too long to be worth it. If you want to continue pursuing it, then good luck, because, honsetly, I think every editor that has encountered him just gives up through sheer exasperation. But if you can get him banned, than I support whatever actions you feel need to take place to see this happen. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer not to get entangled with him, either -- I already had to deal with that nutcase physicist J*** Sar***** bombarding me with truly nutty e-mails (until I dumped his name into my mail blacklist) and enlisting those aeorthemetry (or however its spelled) nutcases to denounce me as a "Digital Maoist" -- but if it needs doing, it needs doing. Hopefully, his veneer of civility won't fool the purely disruptive nature of his antics and a ridiculously gaseous ArbCom procedure won't be required -- because he WILL turn it, one-handed, into a three-ring circus.
What unnerves me, though, is what I found when I went looking for some evidence about his boast that lots of people link to his Geocities/AOL sites: this blog entry. Note Gordon's responses. Unreachable is right, and an RfArb would just give him new and untapped material for unhinged Wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 10:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calton (talk • contribs) 13:48, 16 February 2007.

Didja Know?!

On 15 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robot jockey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help Jeffrey. Things seem to work fine now. --NotJackhorkheimer 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*me is stupid*

Aww, look at the cute little doggie!
Aww, look at the cute little doggie!

I have no idea how I forgot to delete that parenthetical. You get a weird image! -Amarkov moo! 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I don't do DRV much, but what is the proper tag? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
{{drv top}} and {{drv bottom}}. On any deletion process, using {{whatever-the-acronym-is top/bottom}} will work. The DRV top tag is unique in using parameters though; the first is the article name and the second is the closure statement. Oh, and signature is added automatically. -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'ello

<​​!--DO NOT CHANGE THE SPELLING. Doing so will be treated as vandalism.-->

^ Why do you want to keep a seemingly misspelled word uncorrected?

Also, you may be interested in my comments here. I still don't think your overall style of administration is effective or particularly beneficial to the community, but I happen to agree with you on this one point :)

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-21 10:02Z

Priorities

Do you honestly prioritize your personal preference over the good of the project? People have pointed out the downsides of the redlink. Perhaps it's only mildly harmful, but with no offsetting good, shouldn't the balance sway toward not having the redlink? I don't get it. Friday (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of folks have said it is "annoying." The argument that it makes me hard to find simply does not hold water. No-one has demonstrated that it is even "mildly" harmful. Jpgordon's comments partially reflect my views on the matter, and, frankly, I don't want a user page of any kind, I don't have to have a user page of any kind, and not having one does no damage to the Project or the editors involved. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you read what Newyorkbrad wrote? He made a plausible case for this being mildly harmful. Making it into a redirect would give you what you want: no user page. And it would answer every objection that's been raised. Friday (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
At the worst, he said a redlink is "misleading." I disagree to the extent that userpages should not be used as a judgment of quality or character (trite book/cover bullshit, I know).
And making it into a redirect would not give me what I want, which is absolutely nothing there at all - no links, no redirects, nothing but red. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern about issues of conduct

Hello, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and

--SNIP--

Hahhaha, hhee, ho, that was rich. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Hi there, I have recently opened this RFC concerning some of your recent edit history. I am a newish user and want to treat everyone with Good Faith. I am open to the idea that many of these edits were well-intentioned, but I cannot help but question your method. I'm sorry for this misunderstanding and I hope we can get it resolved soon. Thanks. Captain Barrett 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. If only your conversational skills were as loquacious and understanding of policy as whatever template you just crimped from. Har. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
'Cause he's a troll, folks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

whaddayaknow

Hello,

It turns out my understanding of userpage warning redaction policy was either dated or wrong. I freely retract my warning to you in re. removing warnings, note that my reversion of your reversion was not supported by policy, and apologize for any distress it may have caused you.

Still, please don't attack other editors personally. It helps everyone if wikipedians work with rather than against one another.

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-22 07:33Z

Whaddayaknow, we're both Babylon 5 fans. But what does that have to do with the price of Kentucky Blue Grass in China? Everything! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What is it that keeps you from being civil, Jeff? I'm genuinely curious.
Whatever you may believe, I harbor you no personal ill-will. It's your attitude toward other users that bugs me. Honestly, why? Please, resist a flip answer or a jab, and go for transparency?
Thank you.
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-22 07:43Z
Cellophane. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Should you ever change your mind, my hand remains extended <3
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-22 07:47Z
What, cellophane is opaque now? Noooooooooooooooo! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJeffrey_O._Gustafson_Archive9_6497.html"