Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Red Barnstar
On my watchlist recently I saw a talk page edit summary that read admins don't get barnstars enough, and I thought that was kind of true. Thanks for always going above-and-beyond my expectations.David Shankbone 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible?

Is it possible to get the material of the page User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 4 back for a very special purpose? It was deleted without notifying me anything (yes, by the time I found out it was up for deletion, the body was already cold and rotting). And, it was deleted because "user pages are NOT a semi-permanent home for the not-ready-for-primetime" and "should not be preserved in userspace indefinitely" (see here). Fine with me. But, there's another place for not-ready-for-prime time pieces that draw so violent opposition because people fail to appreciate the usefulness of growth. It's the Prop-Up I'm talking about, a tiny greenhouse for delicate articles that can't peacfully grow in the jungle we lovingly call the Wikipedia. Can I have the material back, so that I can work on it there? You can mail me the stuff, and therefore do no harm to Wikipedia. I am asking for this for a very simple reason - the material I was working on already incorporated painstaking diligence of a over a dozen editors, and it would be very difficult to redo the good work all over again. People should not start repairing by throwing them off the cliff first. Even if you are unable or reluctant to agree to my request (which is indeed a bit unorthodox already), please, do tell me how else can I attempt to start working on the stuff to make it Wikipedia-worthy one day. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • For this subject? Sorry, no. If it were a company or a garage band then no problem, but we already cover this subject more than adequately and no amount of nurture can fix the problem with that particular POV-fork. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

spam

In case you didn't notice - IP address reverting your deletion of his spam links. [1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another admin blocked him. I'm reverting his reversions of your changes now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

hello Guy....

if I were clever enough, I'd leave you the same flower FloNight once left me, which I found both pretty, and charming - as a freely offered gift for you to enjoy, and to try and build some faith between us. I think we all need to work on seeing the good in others - it's vital to the project's health. I've just got back from my ban, and am trying to get Socrates up to FA standard - I could use some help if you've got any time, energy or expertise........ Privatemusings (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that working on Biographies of Long-dead Philosophers (a wholly uncontentious form of BLP) is a good thing for you to do, but I am not in a position to work on that article. The Philosophy WikiProject has many good editors, though. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree that WP:BLDP is a good fit for me, for now! - thanks for the pointer to the wikiproject, I've never engaged with one before, so will head over there, take a look, and try and get some help.... best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Runreston

I just thought you should know that I am not the same person as User:Runreston. I understand that User:Alansohn has serious difficulties with a number of people, but I am making every attempt to conform to Wikipedia policies and do not want to be dragged into these other controversies. I find it interesting that User:Alansohn uses "confirmed" and "likely" interchangeably, and that he makes comments about my account and User:Runerston's account interchangeably. I suggest that you review [2] as well as Talk:Dane Rauschenberg to understand the context of his actions and accusations. Thanks Racepacket (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ACS article lives on

You deleted the TlatoSMD version of this article, which was then undeleted... And you nominated it for deletion here where it was ultimately deleted by Riana. It has been recreated at User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Adult-child sex. On his talk page there is a note about when/why he happened to place a full copy of the article on the userpage of Pol64 (a banned anti-pedophile activist). That caused me to search a whatlinks for some of the articles section links, which led me to the userfied version. Anyway, you tell me - should it be deleted, again? Avruch T 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Overjoyed / TimmyTruck

Looks like User:Overjoyed, whom you blocked, has found either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. [3] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see he claims to be 99 going on 100. I'm guessing he's in the same "old folks home" as the permanently blocked User:Overjoyed and the currently blocked User:LaSylphide. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. Try WP:RFCU. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to determine whether Overjoyed's now-deleted Image:Gidgetz02.JPG is the same exact picture as Image:Gid Title.JPG which TimmyTruck uploaded for Gidget (TV series)? It was the same frame, for sure, but I hadn't captured the old one, so I don't know if they're physically identical. Also, I notified the user that I had notified you, and he deleted it without comment, as did Overjoyed in similar circumstances. Another user, Pinkadelica, independently came to the same suspicions I did. They also both show the tendency to upload frames from the Superman DVD's, and to focus on Phil Tead as a "recurring" player in the final season, more than anyone else has. It's worth pointing out that TimmyTruck has been around longer than Overjoyed was. The former started in October, the latter turned up in January. This might be a bit much info. Is ANI the place to take this, or is RFCU better? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the same as near as dammit but that means nothing, most of these images get picked up off the interwebs somewhere. You can ask at WP:ANI if you like, but as I say I am not seeing this as one single user. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It's also worth pointing out that the user's claim that the uploaded images are "reduced size, low resolution" is false, at least for Gidget. They were taken directly from DVD's, which are usually 720 x 480 as the newly-uploaded image is. The items from Superman are at 500 x 333, shrunk by about 30 percent from the DVD captures. Both the ones recently uploaded by TimmyTruck, such as Image:PanicSky.jpg; and some of the ones uploaded by Overjoyed, such as Image:ADV_Stars_02, are at the same 500 x 333 size; and they also use the exact same wording on the fair use rationale. Much of this is arguably coincidental. Maybe I should put it this way: Do I have enough suspicious stuff for an RFCU to catch someone's interest? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea, but it can't hurt to ask. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm also talking to User:Wknight94 about this. I'll just see if there's enough to at least raise suspicions, and if the admin corps decides to take no action, so be it. They are clearly not on the exact same IP, as blocking of Overjoyed also blocked LaSylphide but not TimmyTruck. The most interesting "coincidence" about these three is their common claim of being very old and (as per the first two) living an an old folks' home. That latter claims to be a holocaust survivor. That's pretty offensive if it's made-up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re 64.236.etc.

[4] Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Since I'm drawing parallels between yourself and Giano, I think it only fair that you also can express your revulsion to me. :) Franamax (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sleeper accounts of Neutralhomer

I already blocked one of his former accounts, Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs), to keep him from using it as a sleeper. I think I remember you saying he had at least two more ... what are they? Blueboy96 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PT Anecdotal Evidence

Hi JzG. I have asked User:JlharrisDPT to quit undoing your addition of a quote regarding anecdotal-based PT practices, as determined by the peer-reviewed journal you cited. Keep up the good work! --Email4jonathan (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hi JzG. Hoping you can shed some light on the purpose of that section. As I have posted to Eustress[5], there are no similar sections in other "Doctoring" profession wikipedia pages, and only seems to disparage the PT profession. Especially as the specific "anecdotal" sentence is presented out of context the the cited authors discussion in their paper. Any light you can shed on this discussion will be greatly appreciated. JlharrisDPT (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Amaechi Okoli's redirects

I noticed that you deleted Cute rabbit and Neoster, however, I found (during my almost 2 hour research of digging through this user's edits) another onslaught of some of the most pejorative redirects yet. Here they are:

So may you delete these using the same reasons you gave for Cute rabbit and Neoster? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) —Preceding comment was added at 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Tempting though it is to engage in a nuke-fest, I thought to myself that maybe second sonic game (as an example) might be a likely search term; perhaps these should go to the redirects for discussion page. 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Which links do you actually feel have potential? Thought asking you to get the job done would be less time-consuming, as I'm sure you and I have other things to do. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you miss my reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, but I don't have an answer. I can't say, looking at them, which are likely useful and which not, as I know nothing about CVG. I have never owned a computer game in my life and have no consoles in the house, although my younger son has now said he wants a Wii. Take them to redirects for discussion and it'll be sorted out quickly enough. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things: one, where is the link? Two, do I list them the way I have them presented here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You haven't replied so I'm assuming you don't have a clue eh? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Listen, mate, I am forty-four years old, depressed, I have teenaged kids, I have a few interests on Wikipedia I'm trying to keep up, my dad died recently, my mum is trying to buy the house two doors along and being stonewalled by the estate agents, I have a shitty cold and am not confident I'll be able to sing the Brahms Requiem tomorrow, I'm trying to diagnose a mail delivery delay between my (Fortune 500) company and Microsoft Exchange Hosted Services, aka FrontBridge, that's causing a substantial problem in relation to another (Fortune 500) company which is a client of ours, and on top of that I'm in the middle of transferring to a new and more responsible job as technical lead for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure for EMEA region, so don't be over surprised if something that is not front-of-mind and is not causing pressing trouble right this very minute takes me a few hours to thing about, OK? If anyone knows where the redirect nuke-o-rama is, please just say, but no, I have no idea, because I rarely if ever go there - I have the sysop bit, I don't normally feel a need to debate removal of redirects. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for advice

Guy, I can't see this as anything more than disruption. I think someone needs to have a word with Pixelface, because if this continues, the word in question will be "Blocked for disruption" (ok, words in question) SirFozzie (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I can't really say too much, having wrestled endlessly with him at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler (where we have the excellent cleft stick: either you ignore it and then the pro-spoilerites claim consensus, or you comment, and are deemed as obsessive as them). But yes, I have thought for some time that he is headed for a slap with the Wikitrout and I can't say I'd be in the least surprised if this latest bit of nonsense was the catalyst. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

...creeps into this petty place from day to day?

Nice wordplay on ANI, seriously, got a giggle out of me, but it kinda bums me out that Morrow's out of jail (first I heard about it). Will (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • We thought for a while that the silly hooters had given him access to a PC inside, which would probably have been worse. But no, he's been out for a while, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • While this place is undeniably petty and Will's heading is nicely apt, the pedant in me feels compelled to mention that Shakespeare wrote "in this petty pace." It does remind me of the time an editor was cited for a personal attack for quoting the Merchant of Venice, though - be careful :) MastCell Talk 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've had people accuse me of personal attacks and even death threats as result of using classical allusions. The combination of ignorance and lack of humour is a dangerous one :-) Guy (Help!) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And I know Shakespeare wrote "pace". I checked my copy of the Scottish Play. Will (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm on a streak of annoyingly "correcting" people by mentioning things they already know, so it's par for the course. :) Apologies for being pedantic. I probably need a break. MastCell Talk 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It was the Pink Panther's worst fault. Pedant.. pedant.. pedant, pedant, pedant..
I'll get me coat. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Search and Rescue (Stargate Atlantis)

Hello admin. Can you please redirect Search and Rescue (Stargate Atlantis) per the arbcom injunction? I already reverted it once to the redirect, but was reverted myself by another editor. Discussions with the reverter (User:Tulkolahten) didn't show that he was willing to self-revert anytime soon. (Last contact was over two hours ago). – sgeureka t•c 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

M1rth (talk · contribs)

G'day JzG. Just a courtesy note that the above account has been conditionally unblocked; I'll be keeping an eye on him, and keeping tabs on civility levels. Feel free to direct any queries in my direction. Best regards, AGK (contact) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nadavs unblocked

Hi Guy, letting you know that I've unblocked him after he promised not to spam. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11

Congratulation — you've just walked into one of the most spurious mediation cases I've ever had the unfortunate experience of being involved in. I would batten down the hatches, because it's never going to end. Some of the subjects to the case have been pushing the same POV for literally years. --Haemo (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence my early comment: unless th epurpose of mediation is to patiently explain to them why it's not going to change, then it is a waste of time for all concerned. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's really getting bad. The tendentiousness is incredible, and based on this ANI thread no one is willing to take any action whatsoever to address the concerns — behavioral, or otherwise, which are occurring. --Haemo (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that anybody reasonable on the Truther side either wised up or left ages ago, and most of the remainder are so obviously batshit that only the most hardened and cynical among us can be arsed dealing with them. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is that there isn't anything juicy for people to latch onto. Yes, they're basically single-purpose accounts here to push fringe theories, but aside from the one example, there's no clear behavioral problems. I shouldn't get the really absurd urge to block them all just to attract sufficient attention to the issue. --Haemo (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fringery all over these days. The POV-pushers have learned how to play the game, how to wait out the bystanders and claim consensus because all but the zealots have lost interest, and how to exploit the isolation of the few lone defenders of neutrality who can be bothered to hang around and try to stop them. I believe this is currently Wikipedia's biggest problem, but I suspect others have different views. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I kindly request you leave this discussion. You declined participation and said it was a waste of time, so I don't understand why you continue to participate. You can also change your vote to accept (accepting mediation, not outcome) and maybe be a little more civil. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Project

It is correct in saying Paul H. Smith (and Joseph McMoneagle) did not agree with the AIR report. They both believe the Stargate Project had value as an intelligence tool and the AIR report was a put up job. Both Smith and McMoneagle think the closing down of Stargate was for an ulterior motive. Both Smith and McMoneagle think the motive was the non acceptance and fear of psychic abilities. Smith says the project was closed even BEFORE the AIR report. But if you look at the figures given by Ed May (Ed May goes way back on the program) the viewers were correct about 20% of the time and wrong 80% of the time. McMoneagle seems to agree with the figures. Smith thinks there is no way to even come up with a figure because everything was so secret and complex. The figure for being correct must be much higher. (See Kazuba discussion page where I correspond with Smith.) I tried to record this by explaining it with each individual's entry Joseph McMoneagle and Paul H. Smith. I guess I did this poorly. Both McMoneagle and Smith are confident they have psychic abilities and it is unlikely they will ever change their minds, no matter what. But they both, and other remote viewers, are unwilling to face a test with James Randi. They think Randi is a joke. So it goes....Kazuba (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Of course they didn't agree, they had a vested interest in it, but we have had quite enough of their special pleading. There is no objective proof it exists, and no credible proven mechanism by which it can work, so that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Kazuba (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I think you are correct. Joseph McMoneagle even realizes and writes," I had learned early on that a large percentage of people who begin to play in the paranormal field lose track of reality." Mind Trek: Exploring Consciousness, Time, and Space Through Remote Viewing by Joseph McMoneagle, Hampton Roads, Publishing Co., Inc., 1997, p 141. McMoneagle and Smith just cannot accept that for themselves. Delusions can be very real. You see that in the news and in psychology and psychiatry often. It is just the way humans are. Events in your life have an affect on creating your perceptions. I am correct in my perception of the past, present and future are sacred truisms that are not easily modified. Kazuba (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wingnut Drivel Template

I realize you are retired and I don't blame you at all, but I was wondering if you'd consider making a wingnut type userbox for me. I really wanted to have a userbox on my userpage that says, "this user is a wingnut." If not, don't worry. In any case thank you for making the infobox. It gave me a really good laugh.--AaronCarson (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, I managed to make one myself using your template after a bit of fooling around. Just treat my request as a compliment to your template/infobox. --AaronCarson (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You lost me with this one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I must be slow..:) Igor Berger (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

130.101.152.83 block

Seems you blocked 130.101.152.83 rather than 130.101.152.155 as you stated on Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. As they resolve to the same school, seems perhaps a school rangeblock might be in order to clamp down further disruption from there. Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:130.101.152.83#Block_evidence, what evidence do you have for this and who do you think it is? Please respond on that IP's page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's highly unlikely that this user is T.B. On the other hand, this editor filed a "frivolous and stale" WP:AE request today using a related IP, at which point Jehochman raised the issue that this sort of behavior combined with the use of multiple though related IP's was somewhat problematic ([6]). MastCell Talk 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Needs stopping, I'd say. The user is disruptive and tendentious and as far as I can see of no benefit to the project right now. Or we could semiprotect the EVP talk page. We really do not need warriors for WP:TRUTH here, especially when the WP:TRUTH in question is actually WP:BALLS. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not T.B. too. Regardless of who it is, indef was excessive. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I suggest WP:RBI for a while and see if he gets bored. As I note above, I sprotected the EVP talk page as the main locus of disruption but would certainly support targeted sprotection or even a brief rangeblock to contain disruption and get the point home. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "investing strategy"

Back in June 17, 2007 you deleted a page I created called Investing Strategy. You called it copywrited. I cannot figure out how to 'see' that page now, so I cannot review it. I presume you know how.

Can you please say what exactly was copywrited. Since it was mostly word-for-word what I have posted on my website I do not want to be in infrigment there either.

But really, I do not believe anything was infringed. In fact the whole point of my website is to post the truths that are not available ANYWHERE else on the web. Certainly, if you thought the Wiki page was the same as my webpage, that is no problem. I certainly do not copywrite it ... I encourage its dissemination. Retail Investor (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[8]

[[9]]

Fastifex

Hi JzG. I mostly reside on the nl.wikti and had not noticed that a load of example phrases on en.wikt, especially on Dutch words all related to what you call asscruft. Ff had two sockpuppets Arcarius and Matricularius, now all blocked and a couple of us have been typing our fingers blue the last few hours to clean up the mess. Just FYI. Jcwf (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf

Request to delete Dance Praise/Dance Praise (series) and its song list

For the Dance Praise series article, all votes so far are Keep (there are about a half dozen of them). For the song list, I have included a third party source, and strive to include more. I have also redesigned the tables, removing black backgrounds. I ask you to reconsider your vote. Also consider that Dance Dance Revolution, In the Groove, Guitar Hero, and even Rock Band all have their video game soundtrack list. Thank you. Alex Perrier (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For your information

Hi, I've given an explanation, on what has happened in the past. Best wishes and go on with your accurate work, YuriLandman (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_11#Moodswinger

Jessica Utts

I was surprised to read this:

So: this biography, with its tiny few sources, appears to me to exist solely to boost, as with several other deleted biographies of similar lack of sourcing, the remote viewing nonsense.

I never heard of remote viewing before I saw this AfD nomination, but I had certainly heard of Jessica Utts years ago. I had no idea she was involved in such a thing. Her notability and the reasons why I heard of her had nothing to do with remote viewing. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

my article

My artcile Darren M Jackson keeps being put up for deletion, I believe the reason is due to fact that its part of a Romany gypsy project, I have used lots of sources to prove notable. Can you help ? Diamonddannyboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Is a newpaper article not a relaible source then ? please check artcile and confirm still not verified as notable useing reliable outside source newpaper. Thanks in advance for your help and time. Diamonddannyboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPP discussion on BLP1E

Guy, could you give your two cents over there? There are a number of people proposing to take BLP1E out of BLP. FCYTravis (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

HOAX

Could you stop removing information about third bridge? The term itself was a hoax, but not the technique. Please wait what will happen on Moodswinger. You are currently erasing information which is just truth. YuriLandman (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hoax or OR, there were virtually no independent references and none that I could find which were provably independent of Wikipedia, so I cleaned it up. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aliquot stringing

http://www.bluthner.co.uk/bluthner/special.html

Generations of piano makers have been constantly attempting to improve the quality of their instruments.

Julius Blüthner made an important contribution with the development of the Aliquot System. Patented for the first time in 1872, it was one more step that provided Blüthner's well known warm and romantic sound.

Currently, the Patented Aliquot System employs and additional fourth string in the treble section attached directly to the bridge that is not struck by the hammers (Figure 6).

The fourth string is stimulated to vibrate through sympathetic resonance when the other three strings are struck, which results in an acoustical system enriching the overtone spectrum. It produces a very dynamic sound, which is audible over a wide range. This unique effect conveys the resonant treble of the Blüthner piano. As an example, it is possible to experience this special effect with many of Beethoven's compositions giving an added dimension in tone colour and dynamics.

Another factor that is a great advantage is that all Blüthner strings are individually hitched. This allows for the Aliquot System to develop to its optimum as well as guaranteeing that the strings are tuned exactly.

For optimum effect, precise tuning is essential. In today's instruments the 'aliquot strings' are tuned in unison with the trichords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriLandman (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

harry partch

http://www.newband.org/instruments.htm#partch%20instruments +read also Genesis of a Music

Kithara: Both Kithara I and the majestically tall Kithara II (81 inches) use 72 strings, stretched vertically, arranged into 12 sets of six strings each. The performer strums with picks or fingers, and must cover his or her territory very nimbly, since the instruments are both quite large. Pyrex rods are used on 4 of the hexads to produce moving tones, giving the instrument a sound somewhat like a cross between a bottle-neck guitar and a harp. Partch built the first kithara in 1938. The current Kithara I was built in 1972, one of his last projects. Kithara II was built in 1954.

Harmonic Canons: there are two types. The simpler type is Harmonic Canon II; these box-like instruments have 44 strings and adjustable bridges which are uniquely configured for each piece. Harmonic Canon I has two planes of 44 strings each. The planes intersect near the middle of each string and thus the player may play on either plane or both at once. Also a moveable pyrex rod controls the pitch on some strings in one plane. The harmonic canons are both melody instruments and as providers of the harmonic underpinning, hence its name, canon, used in the sense of "law". It is played with picks or fingers and is strikingly used in cascades of pitches. Partch built his first canon in 1945, and continued to refine the instrument into the 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriLandman (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bart Hopkin about the Pencilina

http://pencilina.com/insts.html

The pencilina is an electric board zither played primarily by striking the strings with sticks; also by plucking and bowing. Bradford first created it around 1985, and has continued to refine it. (“It just keeps developing," he says.) The basic form is of two boards mounted parallel to each other on a stand, like extended guitar necks with no bodies. Each has a bridge at either end, and tuning machines at one end. One of the necks has six guitar strings stretched across it; the other has four bass strings. Wedged over and under the strings in each neck is a stick – an old drum stick for the guitar strings and a metal rod for the bass strings. The sticks divide each string into two segments, one on each side, which vibrate quasi-independently and so can be played separately. The sticks can also be moved to alter the effective string lengths on either side.


There are four built-in pickups: two are contact mics mounted in the bridges at one end of each neck, and two are guitar-style electromagnetic pickups which are placed under the strings toward the opposite end. In addition, there are four bells – a fire bell, a door bell, and two brass telephone ringer bells – mounted at the end of one of the necks. The contact mics pick up the ring-ing of the bells through the wood of the instrument. They also pick up percussion anywhere else on the wooden necks, so any spot that happens to produce a nice sound is available for drumming. The slidable stick arrangement, it turns out, is laden with odd sound possibilities. Typically the wedged stick divides each string into two separate string segments with different pitches depending on their relative lengths. But for many stick locations, there is communication across the stick, so that when one side is struck the segments on both sides contribute to the sound. The quality of this effect depends on the pitch relationship between the two strings segments and whether they share any overtones frequencies in common. All manner of strange gong-tones can arise, infinite in their variability. Other special effects occur when the player pivots or flexes the wedged sticks to change the tension on the strings as they sound. The fact that the electromagnetic pickups are movable adds yet another parameter.


The instrument, as you may guess, is completely idiosyncratic – and yet within its idiosyncrasy lies a world of possibilities. Bradford’s phrase is “I haven’t hit a wall with it yet” – meaning that in all the years he’s been playing, he hasn’t exhausted any facet of its potential. “It's been my primary focus for a long time, and I’m still learning gnd trying to improve on it. I’ve grown to really like what the pencilina can do.” Bradford currently uses a pair of shortened timbale sticks to strike the strings. But yes – when he first began to play the instrument, he used a pair of pencils as his strikers.

-Bart Hopkin, Orbitones, Spoon Harps and Bellowphones, Ellipsis Arts, 1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriLandman (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd

here's the title derived from http://www.nonoctave.com/heroes/buzz/harmonic.html YuriLandman (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would you consider this [10] edit by the IP Address: 166.70.235.16, which traceroutes through "jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com" to be a violation of his one year ban? If I'm correct, that resets his ban (Not that I think he'd actually come back or be allowed back when this is all over, anyway) SirFozzie (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I would consider it to be quite likely to be Jeff Merkey in a fit of righteous anger. We do not (I hope, anyway) bring out the big guns when people are upset about things going on at their own articles. As I said, please do leave this until I've at least tried to find some framework by which he can be helped to address any problems with the article. He is not evil, but he is Jeff Merkey, and needs a touch of sensitivity. Last time we spoke we were on the phone for well over an hour. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave it alone for now. BTW, after reviewing his comments on the evidence/workshop page of his arbcom page) (I was trying to debunk theories on Slashdot, along with JoshuaZ and Tony Sidway amongst others), I'd fight tooth and nail any attempts to bring him back. Just my .02, man :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, plenty of people find him too kooky to get along with, but on the plus side he was working well with Phaedriel on the Native American articles against some insidious POV-pushing, so I cut him a bit of slack. I'm quite prepared to believe he's the kind of person who is constitutionally incapable of getting along here, but as I say I think we should be kind here - and I think we should also be careful not to over-react and give people even more ammunition. Article subjects are entitled to at least a little bit of leeway where their articles are concerned, it can be upsetting to people as we know. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tough day

My hot water cylinder sprung a leak. So I turned off the isolation valves and they leaked. So I went tot he loft tank and that was leaking too...

So I replaced the loft tank, cylinder and incidentally the defective bath tap that I was trying to fix when all the other crap happened. The old cylinder is full of limescale, of course. I'll cut it open so the kids can have a look.

Needless to say all the soldered joints were perfect but there were a couple of minor issues of weeping from the compression joints. Always the way. So now I'm tired and sore and going to have a nice warm bath! Hurrah! Guy (Help!) 20:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hats off to you sir! That's a pretty good load of plumbing work. I can successfully swap out a toilet, but if I undertook the project you did, the lower level of my home would be a lagoon. :-D Vassyana (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuban artists redux

Hello, JzG … Sorry to intrude, but since you blocked 200.55.139.212 (talk · contribs), I thought you should know that 169.158.224.133 (talk · contribs) appears to be one of the IP socks for ArleArt (talk · contribs), adding the same linkspam as discussed here … Happy Editing! — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


ok thanks all i wanted was reply.

[11] I thought you were ignoring me. i'll correct my last edit Uconnstud (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


DRC

The same way you removed my comment here [12] Why am i not allowed to remove yours? I am simply following WP:DRC. did i do something wrong by deleting it. I have read it and saw it. I thought it was angry, but i did read it WP:DRC. I did ask in the AN/I why youtube links are allowed in one sense but not in another. I've seen them even used in featured articles on wikipedia and still allowed. Well I'm not going to dwell on it. Uconnstud (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

2x hoax or worse for nukeh and gewp.org

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. Within a week or so there will be experimental data on youtube, so i think i will stop making wp entries until then. People that know me might say I need checked on calculations - because I work alone. No one that knows me would ever see me as a guy that would pull a hoax on such a serious subject. I am motivated by having a three year old son, and if there is a brighter future for his generation by one of us leaving something good behind, I would be very pleased. I do admit to being semi-nuts, and I did spend 4 years looking at W=fd. I was intrigued by systems that could do work but have unrecoverable d, like a runaway kite. Propellers, on the other hand, recover distance and do work. That struck me as very special. I was working on wind and chutes and erratic motion, back and forth. I finally got tired of the low forces in wind and looked at waves.

I'd like to know what is worse than a hoax and to whom.Nukeh (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Deformed Indonesian guy

I understand your concerns here, but I don't foresee a consensus to delete. Regardless of the result I was wondering if my (typically 11th-hour) comment on the AFD makes any sense to you, as an alternative to deleting. — CharlotteWebb 18:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 (sigh...) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Hey... Uconnstud (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion, please.

I hadn't heard of the Jeff Merkey story until just now.

Is anything going to be done about this? As it is, there's clearly enough information for an IRS investigation.

I made a proposal here. [13]

I saw that you were one of the people on Jimmy's talkpage who agreed that brushing it off as no story was ridiculous, so I thought I'd ask for your opinion. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Wow. When I originally saw Giano's remarks, I thought he was being sarcastic, because of the way he started off:

I'm posting as I want this to be widely read,both inside and outside Wikipedia. I think I am the person with the Wiki-knowledge and standing to say this

So, when you responded that you agreed, only louder -- I misunderstood.

But apparently, Giano was serious, which is insane. And you agreed with him, only louder. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


In response to you

In response to your comment on my userpage [14] . I'm moving off this site. In leaving i'll take a quote directly from you and say that i read what you wrote [15] "Having given this the consideration it merits, f off" [16] . Since its ok for you to use that tone and language, i'm going to quote directly from you. Enjoy your life and all the best! I have now retired! Uconnstud (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Framework for clarification

Hi: I have created a "framework for clarification" to help resolve the editorial conflicts at the Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas page, see Talk:Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas#Framework for clarification that should help deal with this. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cure-C-Cure

My LBS told me that a lot of people swear by Cure-C-Cure puncture repair kits and being new to the world of road biking I did some Googling to substantiate this. Lo and behold, I came across http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=93278 when I noticed a post by "Just Zis Guy" -- hang on a sec -- I recognize that handle! What a small world indeed. = P So, would you mind telling me why you think Rema makes better kits? --  Netsnipe  ►  13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The Rema kit is the better kit, in my experience, the glue is better , the patches have a finer feather edge and are thinner, so they stretch better with the tube, and overall I find they are more likely to work first time. But I have an old box of Cure-C-Cure as well, and use them mainly on mountain bike tyres, largely without any problems. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Move protection and AN/I reports

Just FYI. Your recent move and protection of State terrorism and the United States‎ has been brought up here. --Onorem♠Dil 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Encouragement

It has been some exceptionally trying times for you lately (to greatly understate it), and now you appear to be facing a whirlwind from all possible fronts. So I hope to offer you some words of encouragement. Look up. Up. Best, El_C 17:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)






Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you would prefer, I can remove you as a listed party. I thought that you might want to participate in the RFAR because you had chimed in during the mediation case. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I regret making this foolish post [17]. I realized, too late, that evidence made available to the Arbitrators either publicly or in private is evidence. Also, the post should have been much more respectful, considering I was in the wrong on all counts. My apologies. "The beatings will continue until morale improves". --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Other tennis dads

Without meaning to invoke "other stuff exists", would you be interested in looking at the pre-stubbified versions of Peter Graf and Jim Pierce and see if they are notable? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Neocon

While I agree with your general sentiment with "Their best bet is to set up Truthopedia, as the neocons did with Conservapedia, and tell it their way on their own site.", but the people at conservapedia are anything but neoconservative - in fact they're paleoconservative. I fear that it's a buzzword that has been used until it has become meaningless. Andjam (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Wikipedia

Hello JzG.

I'd like to inform you about an impostor on the Irish Wikipedia who's chosen your name. If you'd like to usurp this account please contact Kwekubo. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain about this?

JzG, this User:Shii/ED deletion seems well beyond the scope of the DRV to me, this was pending at MfD but was suspended, my understanding was it was suspended b/c if DRV allowed creation, the draft would be moot, not if they kept it deleted. This seems to me to suggest Shii can't continue to work on it, which I didn't even see discussed in the the DRV (except by a few editors who claimed we could never have an article on this, which position most certainly did not have consensus). I really have no concern for this (proposed) article except that I was cleaning up closed cases at MfD and ran across this. If there is discussion of this elsewhere (I see you deleted it twice but don't see any discussion between you and Shii - maybe I just can't find it), please point me to it as this is a bit confusing to me. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The DRV was pretty unequivocal. The best thing is to go away for a while and hope that one day they grow up sufficiently to huff the pathetic attacks and become something close to what they were supposed to be. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The closing admin for the DRV encouraged efforts at drafts such as this. To delete it because of the DRV is too much of a stretch. If you won't undelete it so it can run in an MfD, I'll take the userpage to DRV, and we can do it that way. I dislike ED as much as the next Wikipedian, but this isn't how we handle these kinds of situations. -- Ned Scott 12:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I did not see that Shii is also an admin, and thus still has access to the content. It's still a stretch to say the DRV called for the userpage deletion, but since it won't stop Shii from making a future draft, there would be no point in a second DRV. -- Ned Scott 12:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yup. Good faith not in doubt, but there are some people who find mention of that site grossly offensive, so it's best to be conservative here. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

From Mattisse

Maybe you would help me with User:Redthoreau on the Che Guevara article. I submitted a 3RR request so he templated me with a personal attack. He has made the article impossible for anyone to edit. Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've always like you, even when you are grouchy and your link is red. Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

After seeing this, I noticed that there was another user Uconnstud (talk · contribs) who was edit warring on St. John's University (Jamaica, NY) just like Bigdaddy718. Judging from the userpage, it seems this guy has some issues with you. Do you suspect Bigdaddy718 is Uconnstud? I blocked Bigdaddy718 because he's a sockpuppet of UnclePaco (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You are a very smart man, I missed that entirely. You are very likely right here. Dates are right, and so is the editing behaviour. But it is gone midnight here and I'm off to bed, so I will have to leave it to you and any others of The Cabal who are around. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Wire Jacket

I noticed that wire jacket had been nominated for deletion in 2006, and survived it. I was just bringing this up because I think you listed the recent nomination wrong. Technically, it's the second nomination. Also, I added some sources to it. Undeath (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Pamela Ball

I hope you will reconsider this proposal for deletion. Pamela Ball has written at least 18 books, some published by Random House, Penguin, Foulsham and W.W. Norton. She holds a Masters in English (1988), and has been a speaker at the University of Hawaii and Florida State University. She has received several awards, including the Hemingway Short Fiction Award. Her books have been translated into other languages. Two of them, her novels Lava and Floating City, were on the best-sellers list. Most of this info, with citations, is now in the article. I don't see the logic in calling this author non-notable. I have no stake in this except that I wrote the article. I don't know the subject nor have I ever met her or worked on anything with her. But I'd hate to see this article go down when the subject is obviously notable. Rosencomet (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jung SuWon

I'd appreciate if you reinstated the page you deleted. Jung SuWon was an important page, helping document the COL program a religious cult. Unfortunately it is contantly turned into a commercial site advertising her, by her followers. Please consider reinstatement. it was unfair, and ill-considered, ifif you look at site history. Jmhunter (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It was also a badly sourced mess full of innuendo, and caused a complaint to the foundation. Feel free to have another go, though, using better sources. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, it is intersting, and not shocking to hear the group complained. They are systematically undermining any facts we post to the point that the articles become useless to wikipedia... Thanks for the info. J Jmhunter (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • They also assert that you are a former member and off-wiki debunker. Tread carefully, eh? Guy (Help!) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • they would be correct. if telling the truth of my experiences = debunker. y'know?

Jmhunter (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

South African Patriot

You have deleted the above sem-protected article without debate or discussion. Please state why. Mark Hasker (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello, the above editor asked for my help in the past regarding this article, and i did so. They informed me that it was deleted by you, without any notice, and the deletion summary was probably borderline-uncivil. As you`re an admin, you have the tools to delete pages, but i feel an XFD may have been more appropriate in this case. Could you let me know your reasoning here? Regards, <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve]]</font> (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are precisely five Google hits, of which two were on Wikipedia. The article was atrociously badly sourced, and contained much negative content about living individuals. Feel free to start a neutral, balanced and well-sourced replacement, but be warned that every single statement in respect of any living individual must be backed by references in reliable independent sources, and that does not include polemical websites and the like. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is some unsourced negative content about living individuals which ought ot be deleted. That material was supplied by the originator of the article, Alan Harvey (AliCatHun) who has since repeatedly vandalized his own article and asked for its deletion. All "negative" allegations concerning Harvey and SAP were fully sourced by me.

Please state whether Mr Harvey drew this article to your attention and requested deletion. If not, how did the article come to your attention? Mark Hasker (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You state "There are precisely five Google hits, of which two were on Wikipedia".
  • That is a simple falsehood. The phrase "South African Patriot" brings up about 843 hits, many of which are of course irrelevant. However, when the search is refined by typing in the name of the magazine's editor "Alan Harvey" 30 relevant hits are brought up, including the highly notable statement that between 1980 and 1987 the extreme-right white supremacist Herstigte Nasionale Party bankrolled the English-speaking far-right journal South African Patriot, edited by Alan Harvey.

Linkspamming campaign to an unreliable source

Guy, I've stumbled across an interesting case while dealing with the Ashley Alexandra Dupré page. There are hundreds of links to a site called "PostChronicle.com," which has a name that sounds like a reputable newspaper - but it instead appears to be a mashup of AP wire stuff and scurrilous gossip. The site itself has a disclaimer, The Post Chronicle accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. That, to me, suggests that we should consider it completely inappropriate for BLP sourcing. A user, Smokefan2007, and his IP, User:69.125.122.202, have apparently inserted links to that site in many different pages, and created an article on Marc Centanni, the site's CEO. I've begun to trim some of the links, and am of course running into the usual nonsense from the person who inserted them. I understand you're dealing with a ton lately, but as you've dealt with a lot of these type of issues, any guidance on this would be appreciated. Thanks! :) FCYTravis (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • A site full of ads with no original content. Yup, that would score high on my spamdar alright. It is clearly not n acceptable BLP source per tat disclaimer, and that user and IP need to be reined in or banninated. I'll see what I can do later today. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hell, I should finish reading before I write.

Disclaimer: Many of the stories on this site may or may not contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Where ever and whenever possible The Post Chronicle™ sources and or includes the name of the author/owner and gives them full recognition for the excellent and invaluable work they do. The Post Chronicle™ make such information available because of it's newsworthiness in our efforts to advance understanding of: free speech, the free press, environmental issues, political practices, human rights, economics, democracy in general, science, political and social issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material. The Post Chronicle™ accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of The Post Chronicle™. We run banner advertising in order to cover the operating costs of delivering the material.

My emphasis in the first sentence. That's an unambiguous no-no per WP:C and all links should be removed with prejudice. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow... thanks Guy. I had to go to sleep right after I left you this note (was 4 a.m. AKDT) and didn't have the inclination to pursue it any further, the bed was calling me. FCYTravis (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, you spotted a problem, all I did was shout about it :-) Guy (Help!) 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for blocking of User:Smokefan2007

I've been cleaning up some of the Post Chronicle links as per your discussion on WP:AN and WP:BLPN. I'm concerned about the "contributions" of User:Smokefan2007 who, even though he denies it, probably has a conflict of interest in this matter. In particular, please review [18] and [19] and consider whether it might be a good idea to block this individual for uncivil personal attacks (the "Eichmann" comment) and/or legal threats. Thanks in advance. *** Crotalus *** 15:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • He referred to it as "my site" and threatened action against those who described it in less than glowing terms, I'd say that the COI is established quite solidly. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update on Funding Evil

You commented a few days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funding Evil concerning the article Funding Evil. I've completely rewritten and expanded the article now; you may wish to review the revised article and your comments in the deletion discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

South African Patriot. Deletion Review

Please restore the above article which will be altered to remove all unsourced material. If you then wish to open a Deletion Debate that will be a fairer outcome than arbitrary unilateral deletion.

Otherwise I will have to put this case to a Deletion Review.

Please state also whether or not South African Patriot editor Mr Harvey drew this article to your attention and requested deletion. If not, how did the article come to your attention? Mark Hasker (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You have absolutely no right to even ask such a question. The mechanisms by which we spot badly sourced articles relating to living individuals are many and varied, and that is all you need to know. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have every right to ask such a question. Whether you answer it is your business, but others have the right to draw their own conclusions from your silence.

Now; will you restore the article pending removal of unsourced material or do we have to go to review? I am happy for you to specify all passages to which you object so these can be altered or removed. I am not happy at the total removal of an article covering a publication which was notable as a major voice of the English-speaking racist far-right in the dying years of Apartheid South Africa.Mark Hasker (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Nope, you have no right to speculate on the off-wiki identities of anybody, or the motivations of those who take actions to protect Wikipedia policies. In fact you have only two enforceable rights: the right to fork and the right to leave. That's a matter of simple fact. You can go to review if you like, but with only five Google hits, of which two were Wikipedia, you may not fare as well as you'd hope. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that, as stated above, five Google hits is an obvious falsehood.Mark Hasker (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Donorgate

Hi. I see that you have made a change to Donorgate on the basis of "BBC got this wrong, Abrahams states he never gave an interview to the Jewish Chronicle (OTRS ticket 2008030910010087)." I assume you have had representations to this effect, so I won't reverse this, but I should point out that the Jewish Chronicle has not withdrawn the said interview article from their website. The Jewish Chronicle article says things like "David Abrahams has made clear to the JC", "Mr Abrahams told the JC", "The JC has seen the letter to Mr Abrahams".[20] The Jewish Chronicle article certainly reads like it is in large part a result of an interview, or questions and answers in some form, with Abrahams; the article has not been withdrawn. Are you sure the representations you have had are from an authorised representative of Mr Abrahams? Thanks. Rwendland (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it probably amounts to how you define an interview; I expect this was a phone interview and not face-to-face. But I have asked the subject to provide references. It doesn't much matter in this case, as we can safely attribute it to the BBC at this point, but I agree that the JC seem to be under the impression that they interviewed him, regardless of what he thinks :-) Yes, I am pretty confident it is Mr. Abrahams himself, from the nature and format of the various representations. An interesting chap, by all accounts. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, interesting chap, and I can sympathise with his desire to get a lower-profile; in fact I see he has been telephoning newspapers asking them to "Leave me alone".[21] But I'm not sure it is objectively the case that he is a "notable only for one event" person. Consider:

  1. He has been a councillor on Tyne and Wear metropolitan county, which is a match for WP:BIO "Politicians ... members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city".
  2. The Times has published an article "Profile: David Abrahams, ..."[22], which is a match for WP:NOTE "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
  3. The Richmond deselection saga 1990-2, ending when Labour's National Executive Committee upheld Mr Abrahams' deselection.[23]
  4. The 2007 Donorgate saga.

I shan't push it, but I'm not at all sure there really is an overall objective case for removing his personal article. Do you any doubts? Rwendland (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Local councillor? Not really within the definition there. It's the UK, not the US, and these are really nothing like as politically significant as US city councillors. I think you'd need to be up to the Livingston level to achieve that kind of profile. What I see here is someone who feels besieged, and largely as a result of the media focus on an event. The event is important enough (in a flash-in-a-pan way, it was the Daily Mail, after all, and not an actual newspaper or anything) and I think Wikipedia was contributing to the hurt. Let's sit back for a while and see how it goes. My biggest concern here is the paucity of objective secondary sources; newspapers are all very well and uncontroversial when used as obituaries, but as the primary sources for BLPs they are nothing like as good as biographies, academic articles and the like. Why not let it lie for a while, and see if we get a better historical perspective down the line. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to sit back. If there are no legal cases arising related to this, his part probably isn't notable from a historical perspective. Rwendland (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanispamcruft

Since I know you like dealing with this so much, a twopenneth here wouldn't go amiss please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Mechanical Nonsense

Neither Woonpton nor The Rationalist are claiming that the mind effects reality at all, much less via "quantum mechanical means". They're just saying that the movie suggests that such a linkage exists. I really don't see the fuss on that one ... the movie clearly tries to make that linkage. Just because the linkage is false doesn't mean the movie didn't try to make it.Kww (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SHRUBBERY?

Wasn't there a WP essay somewhere comparing arbitrary demands for discussion to the Knights who say Ni's arbitrary demand for a shrubbery? I found an instance of you making the comparison when I did a google search, but I'm at a loss as to why I can't find the essay. Unless I'm on crack and it never existed. Do you know where it is? Mangojuicetalk 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahahaha! I remember now, yes, it wasn't in WP space was it? Excellent. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Yes, thanks, that was really bugging me. Mangojuicetalk 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
{{shrubbery}} it is :o) Guy (Help!) 18:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Valkyrie

Can you explain what the problem was with the source you removed? I had reverted you, but then I revised the citation template to match the WENN article as I found on NewsBank just now. Let me know if this is still an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I didn't even look, I noticed you'd gone direct to WENN, assumed you'd checked the source and ensured it was reliable, and trusted you :-) Guy (Help!) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Zlango

Why are you editing the archived AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Per the edit summary, I am unlinking an unreliable source. This is mainly so I can establish where it's being linked in mainspace and other places where it matters. No change to the content, just unlinking one site. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe you should not be editing closed AfD's for any reason. I think as an admin you know this already. The link to www.postchronicle.com/news/technology/article_21225439.shtml may be unreliable, but surely that is for the reader to judge, not you. So why exactly are you doing this? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, there is absolutely no policy reason whatsoever to prevent minor edits to archived pages, and in this case I have a decent reason: to get the list of hundreds of links (many of them spammed by the site owner) down to something manageable so I can work on them. WP:C, WP:RS. Nothing was deleted, nothing whatsoever, all I did was unlink sites for convenience. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a policy for editing closed AfD debates, which reads clearly (at the top of every AfD):
"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."
So I ask again, why are you ignoring this clear instruction? What is so important about these links that they have to be removed, even if it means over-riding AfD protocol? You do realise there is a permanent audit trail in the edit summary which cannot be deleted?--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not modifying the debate in any meaningful fashion. All I did was unlink one website. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted a different such edit of yours, then came here to explain my action and found this thread. I agree that, generally, closed AfD's shouldn't be edited. In addition, the edit I reverted was to a signed comment by a Wikipedian. It's sometimes proper to cite blogs, etc. in a deletion discussion. JamesMLane t c 06:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussed on admin noticeboard, unlinking (no removal, just unlinking, that's all it was) is not a problem for this site due to issues with its use and being spammed by the site owner. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Thanks for your help on this article. I can accept what you've written re the PostChroncile. I've reverted your last edit, not because I disagree, but so we can know where we need better sources. Please look back on us in a week, if it is OK, by then we should have them all replaced. None of the postchroncicle cites look to be anything we can't get from CNN or FOXNews. If you see anything else we're doing wrong, please also let us know.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I note you have also removed this link to www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_2121626.shtml. Is this part of a crusade to rid Wikipedia of links to this site? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See WP:C, WP:RS. We do not use blog aggregators and copyright violators as sources in WP:BLP articles. Wehwalt, reverting was a crap idea. We don't keep bad and possibly illegal sources just because we haven't a better one. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am being misunderstood. I am asking who has decided that WP:C applies to www.postchronicle.com as although I am not convinced it is a reliable source, I believe it is unusual for sources to be expunged from article. In this instance, I believe the link is a now dead. Sites like this come and go, and they seem to be little more than mirrors for other sources. However, why are you particularly interested in this site? Please disclose your interest for clarification. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not being "expunged", it's just being unlinked. The site freely admits violating copyright, and per WP:C we may not link to sites and content that we know infringes copyright. In addition, unlinking (not deleting) these links makes it easier to track where it is being used, in contravention of WP:RS, in mainspace. There are many such links, a lot of them added by the site owner, others added in good faith by people who were misled into believing that the site was a genuine news source, which it isn't. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
We've gotten rid of the Post Chronicle refs, though I am not terribly happy at having to do it. They don't seem to alter what they collect there, they just have a rather questionable fair use rationale that I'm not sure of the validity. However, we've done it. Incidently, when I reverted, the "crap idea" that you mention, I simply wanted the refs there temporarily so I knew where to find replacements rather than searching through the history. That is what I said, see above. Jeez. Had you done as you had suggested over on the Administrators' notice board and simply deleted the http, that would have been fine and probably made life simpler. Thank you for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
They have two sorts of content: that which is collected form other sites without permission, violating WP:C, and that which is published under their own (apparently fictitious) bylines, with no evidence of a fact-checking process, thus failing WP:RS. If you can track the original source, which can sometimes be done, and establish that the original source is reliable, which it wasn't in a number that I checked, then citing the original source should be fine. No problem, though, it's entirely fair to ask for clarification. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI Thread

Good Morning. There is an inquiry at WP:ANI regarding your removal of links to a source called the Post Chronicle from articles and other pages around the project. At your convenience, you may wish to stop by and discuss the matter. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ping re gawiki

Yep! Should be fine now, as I've unblocked. Go for it :) If you've any issues, let me know and I can ask the local 'crat to rename if needs be - Alison ❤ 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun Mafia

Hi Guy,

The author of the article is back and using his same old tactics. He has proven again to be uncooperative and in violation of Wiki rules. He has edited the main article and is posting under his handle and IP on the Articles for deletion/Pashtun Mafia page. Please take a look into it when possible NangOnamos (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family

Approximately a year ago you put a permanent lock on the article Canadian Royal Family after it was made a redirect. A discussion is now underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Commonwealth realms in which a number of editors are in favour of reinstating the article. Please feel free to observe and or participate. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

gaWP

The local 'crat has now moved that account, so you're good to go :) - Alison ❤ 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yup, just spotted the "all in order" on my prefs. Seems this feature also, as a side effect, prevents users from registering a new account with a global account name, so that problem should not recur. All in all I rather like this new feature :-) Guy (Help!) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Mattisse (Talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

LeRoc

I just wanted to explain why I undid your update. I've been maintaining the discussion page on that article to help explain the most recent changes & background. Leave me a note there, if you think we can handle it any better. Cheers 91.106.54.142 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your comment about "list of films to wank to" here, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters award you the Barnstar of Good Humor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, he deserves a good "trout slapping" rather than a stupid humour barnstar. heh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.204.71 (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You deserve that barnstar. You just made my day (barring a minor near-choking incident due to combined coffee and laughter) with the word "treeware"![24] Thanks! I needed a good bit of humor today. :) Vassyana (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I had to look it up, but once I had and the word's full import descended upon me, mirth was experienced here as well. :-) (But why does treeware redirect to where it does???) Jayen466 19:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't resist.[25] Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
MM (more mirth) :-)) Jayen466 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Time Out ?

Hey JzG let me call a time out here and explain where I am coming from. The reference does cite the magazines that Ms. Allison either works for or contributed to. Are there more likely sources out there, probably? However, the reference source cited also establishes the point. Most likely the sentence does not even need a reference cites, but if you have one, my feeling has always been to use it. Hope this explains a little bit more of where I am coming from, rather than one sentence edit summaries that can be terser than expected. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. I can't say I'm overly happy using that site as a source for anything, especially in a biography. Perhaps the time has come for a look around for other sources, I'll have a Google in a bit. Thanks for coming here with this, by the way, as you saved me a trip to your talk page, plus you reminded me (because I got sidetracked, yet again). Guy (Help!) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem - you actually have Orange Mike on your side. He did suggest the same thing that both you and I just talked about, alternate sources. I’ll look tonight, it shouldn’t be that hard. Take care and have a great evening. ShoesssS Talk 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, sides? Not a good sign. Time for WP:TEA :o) Guy (Help!) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You know us competitive types – if there are no sides – there is no fun :-). Take care. ShoesssS Talk 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is no deadline

I see you are the original author of this widely quoted essay. Have you seen that it currently also expresses just the opposite view as you originally expressed? The View two sentiment is also widely held, but I feel that rewriting someone's essay to also express a contrary view is rather naughty. I would suggest that View two find it's own essay and yours offer a See also link to it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

a lurker's Eureka moment

I am not one to normally stick my nose in places it shouldn't be, but the irony in this was beyond measure, and made my day. Note well, and, since you seem the type that likes irony, enjoy.

Keep up the good work. And I'm glad to see I should expect it to get even better... Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help to delete account / pages

It was suggested to me by User:Hans Adler that you could assist in closing my user account, and all associated pages. I have no further use for it, and it is now just target for repeated harassment by Cheeser1. If you would like further details, please consult my last entry on the talk page of this account. Thank you. c (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Guy, I hope it's OK that I have sent R_physicist to you. There have been so many misunderstandings and escalations by now that I thought it best to send him to the most experienced Guy I know here. I promise I am not going to make a habit of sending you work, especially now that you have a new post. If you want to refer him to someone else, the important point is that it should be somebody with experience dealing with furious new users who misunderstand our mechanisms. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Blanking the talk page of User:R physicist (something that he can also do himself) would have the side benefit of hiding his personal attacks on other editors. I don't know that any additional steps are either deserved or appropriate. I would prefer that he avoid phrases like 'harassment by Cheeser1' (above), ''acting from sheer viciousness', and so on. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Apart from other experiments, that's one thing he tried. But without lasting success [26]. There is a communication problem because he has come with strong misconceptions about Wikipedia. Cheeser1 has made mistakes in this matter, and so have I. I apologised for mine (more or less) and proved to him that I am a fellow human being, and we are now in email contact. (He also exchanged emails with Charles Matthews and others and contacted Jimmy Wales.) He just wants to leave now, but he also wants to be certain that his handle won't be associated with unfounded sockpuppetry accusations and the like again. He needs to be certain, not we who know how our processes work. (For illustration: When TravisTX told him about WP:RTV he tried to follow what he read as instructions for vanishing, which was a logical reaction in his situation. The page clearly needs an explanation how to make use of this right.) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If the user wants to exercise his right to vanish, and actually does vanish, then it's unproblematic. We're less likely to go to any great lengths if he just wants to bury the bodies, of course. If he is concerned that his name is traceable to RWI, then he can request a rename. There are a number of ways we can help people to leave with dignity, the problem only really comes when they keep coming back. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that's exactly the kind of sensible response that I hoped to get from you. I am quite sure that he has no plans to return at this stage. Unfortunately in this case it almost looks like a conspiracy not to let him leave with dignity. That's why I came to you. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guy

Hopefully you won't delete this. I took a look at QI - good show by the way, unfortunately it hasn't been shown in Australia (not sure why, stephen fry is positively brilliant), and I understand your reason for the turd burgular redirect a little more. I still think it was a horribly bad idea, but it does make more sense, even if it was lacking in a little judgement. On a broader note, as one of your most ardent critics onsite, I think you have improved markedly. You seem to be disengaging from disputes more and are a little more open to constructive criticism - or at least taking notice of how the community reacts. Please be assured that this is a good faith reaching across the divide - credit where credit is due, you are obviously making a concerted effort. Please keep it up. Before the RfC and when the RfC was filed things were looking very grim for your future as an admin. You say you haven't read it (and that is entirely possible) but if that is the case someone must have pointed out that there is a very strongly worded statement from a sitting arbitrator stating in no uncertain terms that the next stop is likely to be desysop if that behaviour continued. I think that whatever you have been told, you have taken on board - change is not an easy process. Wikipedia needs enthusiastic admins, and you certainly have the drive and the enthusiasm for the project to succeed. Keep that enthusiasm, take on board the advice of your peers and you could do a world of good for the project. We may not ever be friends but let it be known that like a couple of high profile individuals (namely MONGO and Durova) you seem to be learning from those around you. Its a tough thing to admit you might have been wrong and takes a big man to do it, keep it up. ViridaeTalk 10:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I have to say that I love the british sense of humour - brought up on british comedies like Monty Python And Blackadder (I like the seocond and 4th series' of blackadder best). Hence why I like QI so much. Honestly, American humour on a whole is completely unsubtle and the australian humour that makes it to television can be a little bit puerile for my liking much of the time. (though The Chaser team is absolutely hilarious). ViridaeTalk 10:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Blood Feud

I cannot remember where I read it (Stephen King short story?) but it goes - briefly - something like this; A priest wishes to intercede in a long running feud between two families, and approaches the patriarch of one family. "Why do you feud with your neighbour?" asks the priest. "Because they are evil!" is the response. "How are they evil?" asks the priest. "They wish to kill me and my brothers, rape my wife, daughters and neieces, enslave my sons and nephews, and steal my cattle." "Why would they wish to do that?" enquires the priest. "Because they are evil!" is the simple response.

Once you give something a name, beit "Evil" or "Troll", then you place an undue bias on the considerations of that somethings actions - it becomes a self fulfilling projection. It blinds us to other considerations. Often, being right most of the time disallows us to realise when we are wrong.

That said, I may be wrong here... but I can't see it. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the essential difference between a troll - one who has malicious intent - and trolling, which is the posting of inflammatory material with the intent to cause drama. It is perfectly possible for a good-faith contributor to troll on occasion. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually... (The other party may be familiar to you, also.)
I agree that the former is self evident, but with the latter I suggest that what for some is trolling is for others an "observation out of left field." Also, at what point do we indef block for an instance of trolling - even or especially if it is the only edits - as against someone properly investigated and declared a troll, per the agreed definition above? It isn't the supposed trolls sensibilities we need to consider, but those who have engaged in good faith with that editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Abuse of PHG Arbcom ruling by User:Elonka

Fully concur of your application of the vexatious litigation principle. You've a good eye. Anthøny 22:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, good call [27] ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

TheUnknownCitizen

Seems a bit odd to me that TheUnknownCitizen (talk · contribs) claims to be a new account (three days old) and yet says that for two weeks that RTFA has been engaging in disruption. I was pretty close to blocking him as yet another DM meatpuppet, but wanted to get a second opinion first. Blueboy96 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Ryulong got him. Blueboy96 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

maybe this means something to you, maybe it doesn't

The Editor's Barnstar
I, Brewcrewer, hereby award USer:JzG with the Editor's Barnstar for seeing right through all the fillibustering that was going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam and corrrectly applying Wikipedia's deletion policy in the face of the "votes" to the contrary. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

fyi

See [28]. I'm awaiting a reply. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Steel

This article has been created following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Steel, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel (which you closed). There seem to be some sources now that may establish notability (although I'm not exactly sure that was the issue with the original articles anyway - they appear a bit atypical). As closing admin of the last AfD I thought you might like to know. Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If the article is acceptable it might be an idea to unprotect Dr. Steel.
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 15 was the most recent. I know some of the sources were discussed there as well. It's sort of iffy to me to recreate it without a DRV discussion, but he's got some new sources. Whether they stand up or not is the question. I've engaged the creator of that and Doctor Steels Toy Soldiers (about the fan group) and basically said 'find more sources or kiss the articles goodbye' at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh FFS. They call it "Operation Wikipedia", they are absolutely determined to have a WP article, it's been deleted literally dozens of times at various titles. There are few things more calculated to piss me off than this sort of thing - groups that try to get the word out and create enough external comment that they can get their Wikipedia article. Like The Game, the absolutely massive global phenomenon where after two years of scratching around we have over three sources so now we must have an article. I would be less pissed off if they would wait until something is notable first, but of course for these folks the Wikipedia article is an essential part of their viral marketing campaign. The "Toy Soldiers" have exploited the changes in protected title mechanisms to re-create something that was blacklisted ages ago, and it's not acceptable. Plus the article was a blatant advertisement. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I must protest the deletion of both Doctor Steel, and the Toy Soldiers articles. I am not aware of past attemts at this wikipedia entry, but after talking with Orange Mike he has informed me of the missuses of past wikipedia entries, and when they were contested or deleted, the creators cried out "admin abuse." I am not here to advertise, vandalize, or misuse wikipedia or any articles I submit in any way. I am however, vexed as to why these articles were deleted. I understand that the sources submitted for credibility and notability might not have been giant conglomerate newspapers, or well known magazines, but they ARE sources none the less, and are PRINTED MEDIA sources, not to mention a city newspaper article. I have followed every guideline in creating these two wikipedias, and whether or not there is a mission on the toysoldiersunite.com forums to establish a wikipedia entry, does not establish that the artist in question is notable or not. --Aridnyk89 (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny how many iterations of those articles have been the work of single purpose accounts just like you. Go back to the forum, tell them that Operation Wikipedia has been thwarted again. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I still fail to see how my account activity or the forum activity establishes credibility of the artist -Aridnyk89 (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if i come off rude, or impotent. I do not wish to argue with you on this matter, as I am aware that nothing I can say at the moment will change your position. My only problem is that I had worked very hard on both those articles to meet the satisfaction of admins I had conversed with. I understand that single purpose accounts is not something too popular on Wikipedia, but that does not mean I haven't contributed to Wikipedia in the past . I truthfully wasn't aware you could even create a user account until i attempted to create the two wikipedias. I understand it was within your full rights to delete both of them, and I hold no malice towards you. Quite frankly I fully support what you and other admins do, keeping wikipedia a reliable source of information. So with that said I will leave the subject alone, and I hope you have a great day --Aridnyk89 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

← I'm sure you don't understand why I think it's a problem, but one day the "toy soldiers" will need to accept that Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. For the interested, this is a subset of places Dr Steel has been promoted:

Small wonder I am somewhat cynical, then. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy. Indeed, you are coming off a quite cynical. But I would like to appeal to your better nature and put aside past events and look at what the current situation. Please stop beating the dead horse of "Operation: Wikipedia" and look at the facts. You are coming off as if you have some sort of blood vendetta as if the fans of Dr. Steel, or even Dr. Steel himself, have wronged you in some way.

As for "single purpose accounts," check mine (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Msr_iaidoka). I have been decently active for a while and have done much more than attempt to create a Dr. Steel page (as I did last year and assisted in doing a few days ago). I am a respectful member who does not stand for vandalism or anything of that ilk. So, if you want to use that argument then you can consider it null and void. In fact, speaking of respect, you deleted rough drafts that I had saved on my own User Page. This was uncalled for and, in all honesty, quite rude. Please, for the sake of keeping things amicable on this website, try not to let personal grudges get in the way of progress. Msr iaidoka (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call on deleting these articles. I knocked back a request to speedy delete the fan club as there was an assertion of notability, but would have deleted it had I known the history of this. The fan club article had several cites, but only one was to something other than the club's own website, and that was a paragraph in an interview with the musician (being interviewed in-character), which was hardly a reliable source. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling, history aside, please tell me what is wrong with this article: User:Msr iaidoka/Dr. Steel Msr iaidoka (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a free webhost or a viral marketing service. And unfortunately I don't have a better nature as far as viral marketing and bandcruft go, see User:JzG/And the band played on.... Guy (Help!) 11:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sprot

Guy, I hope you don't mind but I've semi-protected this page as it was getting vandalised. --John (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:spam

Why is rmadhavan.com called as spam. The actor, R. Madhavan has announced its his official website. Please can you unblock the filter put on it.

  • The website designer decided to spam Wikipedia. Not very bright of him, I agree. Find the home page (probably index.html, once you get through the flash crap) and I'll whitelist that. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage ☛ Talkpage

You should have your userpage redirect to your talkpage or you will look like a new user which you're not, thanks. 72.67.104.27 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

You closed the WP:AN/I thread I started by stating "Not mmm-mm-mmm-mmming" What do you mean by that? Yahel Guhan 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The User:Hanvanloon case

FYI: Update to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hanvanloon. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah for you!

Dear JzG, what with all the low drama and trollery going on, I thought I'd drop a note to say thank you. This is one of the most decent things I have seen in a long time. I also wanted to say that I enjoyed reading what you had to say about your dad. In some ways he reminded me of my dad, dead a few years now, and my uncles, likewise mostly gone. I think it must have been something in the air back then, or maybe all those old Colonel Blimps who used to witter on about the character-building benefits of national service had a point. Very best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Last resort

Guy, I've about given up on the musical instrument project since no one has responded to me there, so I'm pinging a couple of editors who were recently active on the project talk page. Are you a musical instrument expert or do you possibly know of any editors who are? I'm starting a project to raise musical instrument to FA since it is a vital article. I'm resigned to working on it alone, but I really need some kind of subject matter expert to answer some questions. Any help is appreciated. --Laser brain (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

Did you get the email I sent 2 days ago? Yahoo seems to dump any reply with Wikipedia in the heading into spam, but I didn't see a response there. MBisanz talk 09:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Buspar/Ron Paul Revolution

Please undelete this user page, which I (and presumably others) still intend to mature into a summary breakout or parallel article to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. For instance, I was just getting ready to add content significant to the revolution (not just the campaign) from Newsweek. You should be able to see I've kept it watchlisted, and contributed after Buspar rescued it to userspace. Deletion of the original page occurred after this hairy AFD. I trust you won't mind us having a little more time to develop and defend the concept, argued there, that the revolution is much more than the campaign. Thank you! John J. Bulten (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I really wasnt aware the document could be regarded orginal reserach her. No prob. Regards Pitohui (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I'm discovering that keeping one's feet out of tar-pit dramas requires an unexpectedly nimble skillset. On reflection, I suppose someone else could hold that my stated concerns could be addressed by expansion of the main article until summary breakout is better indicated by consensus. Given that, for simplicity and diplomacy, I'm going to make the snap judgment that you and I do not currently understand each other on this topic, and I trust we will have another occasion on WP to understand each other better on other topics. Cheers. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Works for me :-) Guy (Help!) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_29&oldid=1147985234"