User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 08 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Handface 2 Encyclopedia Dramatica DRV 3 Handface personal attack 4 Minnesota State Highway 33 5 Why Michael Likes Children 6 WTH? 7 FYI 8 Another 'sister' Jim Shapiro 9 Precedent for blanking an AfD? 10 Jim Shapiro on deletion review 11 User: RJII 12 Vandalism 13 Terryeo possible attack again 14 RfAr 15 Jargon 16 Blushes Magazine

[edit] User:Handface

Hi Tony,

Sorry to bother. You recently took at look at User:Handface. Unfortunately he chose to drastically escalate the situation with a particularly vicious and unprovoked personal attack for which I gave him yet another 1 week block. In response he has now created two sockpuppets to evade the block and make personal attacks on my talk page and attempt to get himself unblocked with some fairly transparent misrepresentations of his actions and claims of innocence. Could you take another look, I'd like to have some backup on this one (or of course admonishment if appropriate). I've also asked for a discussion about a possible community ban on WP:AN. Thanks, Gwernol 19:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for the heads up. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on WP:AN, Gwernol 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Dramatica DRV

Hi Tony! I have put this DRV back on the list, not because I want it restored (indeed I put in a "endorse deletion" myself), but becuase there are a few people who have argued for the article's undeletion in good faith. Letting the discussion stay for the full course will not do anything harmful, and it will ensure that nobody will start complaining about the article not getting a fair hearing on the DRV in addition to the complaints we already have. Sjakkalle 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that's right? There is already a thumping endorsement (and has been for all five days), and I notice that deletion reviews with are often closed after five days.

I think that discussion should have been closed as early as possible because it attracted, and gave comfort to, trolls who are not here to write an encyclopedia but rather to promote their own website. There has been almost no serious opposition to the deletion. It's a classic Snowball clause case; however my latest close was made under the impression that five-day closes are normal. --Tony Sidaway 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been some serious opposition to the process, actually. To continue to act as if it's giving "comfort" to trolls is completely baseless, please stop with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The review itself was started by a known troll. I continue to feel dismay at your (apparently unwitting) connivance with this trolling. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The review was only started by a "known troll" because he beat me to it. I don't know why I'm discussing policy with you, given your record on the matter, but it's been pointed out time and time again how utterly flawed the AfD discussion was. That somehow has to be dealt with. --Badlydrawnjeff 11:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I recognise that you genuinely believe that I'm the one who is wrong about Wikipedia policy, and that you believe there are serious flaws in the close. I withdraw my objection to the continual re-opening of this, in my opinion, moribund discussion, in the hope that by seeing it play out you will finally be convinced that there is no consensus, nor anything resembling consensus, for your view on Nandesuka's close. --Tony Sidaway 11:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks on that, at least, but it still doesn't address the gross policy violations that you've wholeheartedly endorsed. --Badlydrawnjeff 11:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not knowingly endorsing any such violation. It could well be that you and I have radically different conceptions of what Wikipedia policy is. Historically, I have found that my view on this tends to prevail, but I could always be wrong in a particular instance, so please tell me which policy violation you think I've endorsed. --Tony Sidaway 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD was closed early by a number of hours, as noted at the DRV. I'm aware that you don't normally care about that sort of thing, however, and I grudgingly accept that even if it infuriates me at times. However, User:Netscott refactored the discussion multiple times (as the nominator, no less), effectively shifting, hiding, or outright removing discussion arbitrarily, in direct conflict with the deletion policy. Nandesuka also completely misrepresented the keep arguments in the close, which certainly doesn't help, and makes me wonder if s/he saw them at all given the massive refactoring. If deletion policy was followed, I wouldn't continue harping on it, but this is largely the most poorly run AfD I've seen in my year and a half here, and the endorsement continues to be puzzling. --User talk:Badlydrawnjeff 12:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that Netscott refactores his proposal quite a lot [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9][10] [11] and also turned some external links to Wikipedia articles into internal links [12] [13]. He added a notice about evidence of involvement in the debate by Encyclopedia Dramatica admins [14]. He also removed some metadiscussion to the talk page [15]. If this was against policy (I think that's arguable) it could be taken into account by the closing administrator. Nandesuka's close unimpeachable, in my opinion. I don't doubt your genuine belief that an injustice was done, but you don't seem to have managed persuade a significant number of other editors that there was a problem. I see from the discussion of the notice by Netscott that you are an Encyclopedia Dramatica administrator. I didn't know that, and knowing it is likely to qualify my opinion of, and regard for, your motives in editing Wikipedia, and in particular your frequent reliance on process and wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 13:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It has never, ever been a secret that I've been involved with ED, and was in fact discussed at length during the AfD. How can you endorse an AfD as closed properly when you're not familiar with issues regarding the argument? Regardless, what that has to do with my "frequent reliance on process" is completely inexplicable, however, and I'd think that, given I've got 5000+ edits here that never even raised any suspicion from you prior to now should probably be a hint for you. Meanwhile, no one has as much as shown any evidence that they've come back to the DRV outside of yourself, and as you haven't shown any respect for the processes, I know I'm pissing in the wind in that regard. In regards for Nandesuka's close, I'm not sure how you can say it was unimpeachable, given that s/he ignored most of the good keep arguments for the sake of his/her poor interpretation of what the keep arguments were about. Hell, the one time a speedy keep would have been legitimate in the last few months (WP:POINT, multiple renominations), and it was missed, too, so it's obvious that there were many problems. The fact that some remain blind to it or assume bad faith about any of us who may have involvement with ED outside of the recent situations here need to be dealt with, and is possibly going to have to be taken to another level. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules are a bit tricky here, but they are detailed in the Undeletion policy. Five day closes are possible if we have a majority to undelete, while delisting the undeletion nomination without restoring should be after ten days. I realize that this has been accelerated sometimes in the past, but usually in a situation where literally nobody would complain about it. (Regarding the trolls, I think they will be far more comfortable if they can be given yet another excuse to complain.) --Sjakkalle 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I believe this ongoing discussion itself is a comfort to trolls. A forthright and uncompromising close minutes, or failing that hours, after it was opened would have been the best path. Endorsement for the deletion is that strong. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'd just like you to know that your continued insinuation that *anyone* who supports ED as an article is a troll is a violation of WP:NPA and is being noted. You've been asked previously to not do label others in such fashion. Perhaps you should argue issues based on fact and policy as an admin rather than personal judgement or morality issues. rootology 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said, I don't believe, and I haven't insinuated, that all who oppose deletion of the Encyclopedia Dramatica article are trolls. I have said that continued pointless discussion of this correct and well supported deletion amounts to giving comfort to the Encyclopedia Dramatica trolls: that is to say, those editors who bear only malice towards Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You certainly implied negative things about my character above, and if I bear malice toward this place, I have an extremely curious way of showing it. The problem is that the discussion isn't "pointless," and the deletion wasn't "correct" or even "well supported." Not by policy, not by guideline, not by process. In those areas, we as a community have failed, and to dismiss discussion of that failure as "giving comfort to the trolls" is designed to silence people who otherwise are making a good faith ffort to improve the encyclopedia and make sure everything stays on the up and up. --Badlydrawnjeff 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's reasonable to draw an inference about your motivations and approach to Wikipedia, from the knowledge that you have achieved administratorship on Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so. I'd imagine that our interactions over the last year plus where you had no clue should be a much bigger indicator than your misguided assumptions regarding my beliefs on this one article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, there are (from looking previously) perhaps at best 30-45 or so articles "about" Wikipedia on that side. They have about 3400+ articles overall, so thats approximately 1.3% of their site. The ED site is hardly about Wikipedia and the subset of content they do have towards wikipedia is barely a fraction of their content overall. Can you honestly in good faith tell me that all of this massive outpouring of effort to see ED removed by a variety of people had nothing to do with the featured article they ran around 7/16/06? rootology 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to obscure the fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica has been used as a site for making personal attacks on individuals, certainly on Wikipedia and perhaps on other forums. The article about that site was itself used as a vehicle for personal attacks on one administrator here. You ask me if I can honestly tell you that "all of this massive outpouring of effort to see ED removed by a variety of people had nothing to do with the featured article they ran around 7/16/06". I wouldn't dream of telling you any such thing. Wikipedia is vast. The Encyclopedia Dramatica article would probably have flown well under our radar had not some silly troll decided to use it as a catspaw. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if the site is useless, every time people shortcut the stated policies for AFD or DRV in the manner done here as "obvious for the benefit of WP" or whatever, it gives the trolls leverage and grounds for complaint.

I know you feel strongly otherwise, but you keep feeding them ammunition and gathering controversy to the process by your actions. I wish you'd knock it off. The way to deal with trolls and controversy is by the book. Georgewilliamherbert 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's bollocks. Trolls play by the book. That's why Wikipedia will never be a bureaucracy. We don't give the trolls the time of day. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said they play by the book. I said that when we don't it gives them justification to complain. You have an inconvenient abusive streak which lumps people who disagree with you in the same category as people who are borderline trolls and people who are clear abusive trolls. When you treat the first two categories like the last, you turn some of them into the last, and bring disrepute to WP.

When you get down and wrestle with pigs, all you get is muddy. WP shouldn't be getting muddy. Very little that trolls do to WP is so urgently in need of counteraction that shortcutting WP policies is necessary.

"Just do the right thing" needs more discretion with a large, diverse, and somewhat less homogenous userbase. By and large WP editors and admins understand this well; you seem to disagree rather strongly, but as I keep saying, that's really really bad for WP in the long run. Georgewilliamherbert 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your point of view, but not to state falsehoods. I do not lump those who disagree with me alongside borderline trolls and clear trolls. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

To be equally fair all the vandalism with that image was by a troll, and should have been treated as a content issue/vandalism. As far as the site launching attacks, where is this similar great outpouring vs. WikiTruth? There are articles there that "seriously" torch various Wikipedians, while the ED stuff on Wikipedians is pretty clearly some completely absurd nonsense. I asked Ryan this the other day and he gave a sincere (if non) answer. If the ED article got mentioned in other media, and had notable sources, would you have any objection to it's reinclusion in Wikipedia? All the arguments that were leveraged and ultimately used to remove the article were solely a nature of sourcing, and applying that the one mention in teh Guardian newspaper (3rd biggest in the UK) was not sufficient. rootology 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the Wikitruth trolls haven't conducted their affairs in quite the same way. It's easy enough to write them off as self-deluding. The ED trolls were malicious and went for a particular guy. I wouldn't object to the deletion of the Wikitruth article either (see my reasoning on the AfD). --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree for now... which AfD? The wikitruth one didn't have comments from you that I saw. Would you mind answering my other question? If the ED site got more press/notability, would you object to it's return as an article? rootology 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD. I don't think Wikipedia can or should write self-referential articles, I don't think Wikipedia needs an article on everything, and I am generally suspicious of the notability/non-notability dichotomy. I find it unhelpful. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handface personal attack

Since this business seems to be over, would you mind if i removed this comment from User talk:Handface? --Ptkfgs 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota State Highway 33

Hello Tony. I am sorry to contact you on this, but I saw your comments to two prior contributors to this page. Would you mind looking at this to see what is going on? There is more background on the Minnesota State Highway 16 page as well as the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways article. As all but one participant in the latter has agreed to use the naming convention of "Minnesota State Highway", and as that convention comforms with local common and official usage, I cannot understand why the one dissenter insists on making changes in the text from a form agreed on for the title. (I did contact that individual but there was no agreement.) Thanks for any insight you can give-- there are many dozens of entries which could be affected and it would be nice to resolve this. Kablammo 01:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? Who and which edits? I don't like guessing games. --Tony Sidaway 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be so cryptic. You apparently had been watching a revert war on Minnesota State Highway 33. That seems to be an outgrowth of a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways, where one contributor wanted to change the titles to the form ‘’Highway x (Minnesota)’’ and the first textual identification of the highway in question to ‘’’Trunk Highway x’’’. Local editors know that highways in Minnesota are not commonly referred to as “trunk highways”, and also that highways typically are referred to here as “Minnesota State Highway x” as in the title of numerous articles already written. So the titles have stayed the way they started, but there are a number of instances where the initial bolded mention of the highway in question has been changed to other forms, including “Trunk Highway x” or “Highway x”. (In Minnesota all roads are numbered, and there are instances of federal, state, and county state aid highways all bearing the same number.) In addition to the pages linked above, there is also discussion at Minnesota State Highway 16 and also at User talk:SPUI at item 317 “Minnesota Highways Revisited” . At the latter page you had warned two opposing editors (item 311) so I thought you could objectively look at the recent changes. It seems the efforts to resolve this have been unsuccessful so far and I thought an outside look would help. Kablammo 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're still not being specific. What do you want me to look at? I've already told these people to be nice to one another. --Tony Sidaway

[edit] Why Michael Likes Children

If you can read, you would have saw my suggestion at the bottom about adding more about the abuse. i believe sight is a prerequisite of using wikipedia. --Paaerduag 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're pushing the enveloped of discussion when you dump large amounts of original research onto the discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my impertinence. I stumbled accross this subject heading by accident and know its Tony's user page, my apologies. The article is about MJ? Can you guide me to the actual page/article? If it is about MJ, I seem to recall that abuse allegations were dismissed in a court of law. I have read some serious articles about why indeed Michael Likes Children citing psychological reasons, which can maybe help source your ideas in the article. Original ideas are always welcome in Wikipedia, Original research is a very big NO. Please give me the artcle name. Mike33 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically don't write an essay about this stuff. Cite some other significant opinion represented by a published source. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTH?

Why did you block User:Kablammo? -Ravedave 00:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A serious error on my part. I've apologised to him. I meant to block the guy who has been raving about Walabio [16] and misclicked in my talk page history. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

You might find this interesting here, just in light of a lot of the recent hoo ha. rootology 00:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what this is about or why I should find it interesting. Thanks anyway. ---Tony Sidaway 03:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, discussion on proposed policy in part, on collecting information to connect vandals to IPs to account names. Just in light of what happened with Karwynn a week or two ago, I thought you might find it interesting. No worries. rootology 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another 'sister' Jim Shapiro

Would you mind looking here please:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion

Thank you!jawesq 18:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a comment there. I don't work on that site so I didn't really think it would be appropriate to vote. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Did some admin now decide to challenge the deletion?

Administrators may view the page history and content at Special:Undelete/Jim_Shapiro.jawesq 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precedent for blanking an AfD?

I'm not particularly concerned about whether Jim Shapiro merited a full AfD or a speedy deletion, but I'm a bit puzzled about the blanking of an existing AfD, especially since there was some controversy about this issue. Isn't it more appropriate just to post the result near the top, like in any other AfD? After all, this was a content discussion that could be valuable to future editing on this topic, especially as it provided evidence about the questionable nature of the sources. (I myself am wondering whether something meaningful could have been developed out of the New York Lawyer source, but I'm not going to press the issue.) Thanks for any insight. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder about this. I'd love to hear more about this because the choice to blank the AfD is a bit puzzling to me as well. Erechtheus 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fairly common practice to blank an AfD in which very uncomplimentary things are said about a person or company. The result can be seen in the history. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What Tony said. Per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material abut living individuals should be removed from articles and Talk, and by extension from related Project pages. The AfD is moot anyway, so blanking is perfectly reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to you both for the explanation. The explanation certainly makes sense. Erechtheus 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

'Preciate the pointers, guys. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Shapiro on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jim Shapiro. 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. I know you had good reasons, and I know you are usually quite adamant about your own correctness, but I strongly feel that a speedy was not the best decision here. I've explained why on the DRV page. Powers 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. I can't believe that anyone would even try to defend this article.jawesq 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: RJII

Excuse me, but you stated the following on the discussion page of RJII: "Anybody who behaves in the same manner as RJII, who claims to have been a group of different editors, may on reasonable suspicion supported by a consensus of editors, or by other means, be treated under RJII's arbitration remedies. Continuously. --Tony Sidaway"

Given that the arbcom ruling banned RJII, does this mean that individuals who make the same edits as RJII and explicitly claim to having used the RJII account themselves, would be under effect of the same ban now placed on RJII? If so individualistanarchist has claimed to be such a user. Thanks for the clarification. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a question as well. There is no Wikipedia policy that says that shared user accounts are prohibited, is there? I find this to be a little bit strange "admits to being a shared account" [17]. Hopefully someone can clear that up... Intangible 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and extended RJII's ban to run to 31 July, 2007. Shared accounts are prohibited and will be blocked on sight. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this, Tony. --AaronS 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a policy that says this. I don't remember where it is, but I asked the same thing when the block first happened. I think it's called a "role account" or something. And I too thank you. The Ungovernable Force 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the ArbCom decision to block RJII was reached independently of the fact that he had a shared account. Second, I'd like to notify you that User:TheIndividualist has also admitted to being a puppet of RJII, [18] and has been banned accordingly. I strongly suggest that RJII be marked as a puppet master and that we should be on the lookout for any future puppets. The IPs used by his puppets should be monitored. -- Nikodemos 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, IndividualistAnarchist first said they were a new account of TheIndividualist, so TheIndividualist admitted to being RJII when IndividualistAnarchist did. The Ungovernable Force 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi, you protected Blu Aardvark's page so maybe you will listen. I told Jaranda who ignored me.

Remember Blu Aardvark? He vandalized wikifur. http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jewbo_Wales (it has his IP address to compare with) http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jewbo_Wales

You can tell by the similar names and blocked IP.

I think this information should go on the user's talk page. Anomo 02:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw Jaranda put it up so it's fine. Anomo 20:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terryeo possible attack again

Tony, It looks to me that Terryeo is attacking editors who are Freezone members again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:ScientologySeries#Free_Zone Here is the quote:

Its obvious to me that neither of you either understand that the Church of Scientology intends to be helpful to people in their daily lives, nor understands that Free Zone practitioners have some misunderstanding which they, individually, have refused to clear up which has constrained them to the Free Zone. :) Terryeo 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not berating cofs people, I wish he would stop berating us.--Fahrenheit451 02:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony's off on break right now, and may not be around to help out. I'm not an admin, either, just a passer by. If you need immediate attention, you might try WP:ANI, or for the lest urgent, WP:PAIN, unless there are other admins who have been directly involved with this in the past. --InkSplotch 16:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr

Having never before participated in an RfAr, I have a question: do I need to add material to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence or is it ok for me to sit it out entirely? Thanks. You can respond whenever. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Tony, but he's on break and not likely to respond so I will. With an RFAr, no one is actually required to participate. I've even seen cases where the person who opened the case made no further comments after it was initially opened. That said, I think if you feel you have any thoughts or evidence you think could help the ArbCom in figuring out the case, you should probably contribute. Even if it's already been said elsewhere, a handy link or two can help them sort things out. Many cases have an extensive history built up in forums like the Administrator's Noticeboard, or RFC, but that doesn't mean all the ArbCom members have necessarily seen it.

On a glance, I see that Arthur Ellis refers to you quite a bit in his statement. He even has some links. Putting aside his interpretation of events, ask yourself if the links are self-explanitory or if they paint the wrong picture. If you feel it's the latter, you might want to state your side of things...but I've seen plenty of times when editors/admins didn't feel that necessary. Because when ArbCom goes to evaluate how you fit into this, I expect (based on what I've seen before) they'll evaluate the direct evidence: links, diffs, edits, etc., and not how any one person characterizes your behavior.

For all this rambling, I'll leave you one final note. I'm not an admin, only an editor, and I've never been involved in an RFC or RFAr before. I've read through many (I've thought of applying to the clerk position), so my comments are based only on what I observe. I cannot read the minds of ArbCom, or make official statements for anyone. --InkSplotch 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon

Howdy, I remember seeing something on your user page about how people should use full words and plain english rather than wiki-jargon. I've been thinking about this a bit. Sometimes it seems to me like the jargon IS helpful. When I've told newbies that information must be verifiable, they all know what the word "verifiable" means in English, but they don't know the Wikipedia-specific meaning as explained at WP:V. So, often they will respond saying, "Yes, I verified this info myself, by talking to the subject of the article". If people are referred to WP:V by that name, they will understand that they don't yet know what this means, rather than assuming they do understand the concept. Anyway, I was curious if you had any thoughts on this, or whether jargon is being discussed someplace. Friday (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is Wikipedia:Verifiability, a word that means the same on the wiki as it does off. WP:V is complete gobbledygook, a mere collection of letters and punctuation. --Tony Sidaway 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blushes Magazine

Hi, Tony. Could you provide references for the thing? Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been unable to source it definitively, although the magazine was a common sight in British newsagent shops in the late 1980s. Back issues of the magazine sometimes turn up on ebay and there are a few Yahoo groups and whatnot where people post items from that magazine, including front covers. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)