User talk:JzG/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 → Archive 55

Deletion

Do you think the other Rockband song lists should also go? I'm willing to nominate them if that is the case. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes. I think the whole lot are irredeemable junk. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's getting rather socky over there, with an IP signing for a user. I predict some more will appear soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was right, we have another. If I do open an SPI later on today, feel free to comment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

If you have concerns regarding Sockpuppetry, I would recommend you include other established editors in the discussions. These "behind the scenes" investigations seem to fly in the face of WP:AGF. Especially when the AFD itself is built on arguments questioning the motives and overall validity of the original decision. -- TRTX T / C 06:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what you're on about. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed - it's good practice to mention the sockpuppetry case in the AfD so that all editors can contribute evidence. --Teancum (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep dropping hints, eventually I'll work out what you're on about. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)\

What I'm "on" about is that part of your argument in favor of the Rock Band AFD is that there were a number of poor arguments made and that the initial discussion was treated like a poll rather than a discussion. And it seems to go against the nature of the discussion to go "behind the backs" of those taking part in the AFD and running investigations on them for sockpuppetry without letting others in the discussion know you have those concerns. If you think there may be sockpuppetry, don't be coy about it. Bring it up in the AFD so that both sides of the discussion can ensure that the AFD's discussion can have some measure of integrity. -- TRTX T / C 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you completely made up the bit about behind the scenes investigations and accusations of sockpuppetry. Fair enough. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Who's making stuff up there, Guy? The concerns were voiced regarding the exchange between you and Kevin above. Thankfully Kevin was much more receptive to my concerns and shared his thoughts regarding his concerns and why he was looking into it. -- TRTX T / C 20:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
Message added 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I am one of Brews strongest supporters, and I think he was dead wrong on Speed of Light. The editors that come to his defense do not do so because they think he is right: Count Iblis also does not think that Brews was right. The reason we come to his defense is because Brews just wasn't ever "disruptive" (in the usual sense of the term) or incivil (in the usual sense of the term)--- his only fault is that he was too loquacious he went on and on and on for months. Being long winded did not use to be a banning offense. He could have been told "keep it short" with essentially the same effect as the topic ban.

The arbcom motion was brought up by an AN/I ArbCom group who feels that they are cleaning up the physics pages by removing disagreements, and who have little appreciation for content-building. These editors happened to on the side I agree with on Speed of Light, but they were wrong on all other pages. Their actions certainly made the climate at the encyclopedia intolerable for knowledgable editors. This is why I stuck my nose in this.Likebox (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but excessive loquacity is disruptive. Sometimes you just have to accept that it's time to STFU. As I say, I have no real opinion on the merits of his edits but I did watch the original arbitration case and I can see that the interminable expositions of his theory were driving people potty. Reframing the restriction in terms of an injunction to drop the stick would be fine by me, but simply ignoring injunctions because you don't like them makes it impossible to control conduct problems on Wikipedia. For every Brews O'Hare there are a hundred Truthers, creationists, LaRouchites, Scientologists etc. Arbitration is not a perfect way of handling stuff and is way slower than the peanut gallery would like but it mostly works and (importantly) it's the system we have, so we can't go round picking and choosing which outcomes we'll abide by. The way to fix an arbitration outcome that you think is wrong is by calm discussion with the arbitrators, not by breaching experiments. That's the point I think is being missed here. Brews' supporters have done a singularly poor job of articulating the case for modification of the sanctions, and this is largely down to a tendency to use hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you--- but the essential problem wasn't ever made clear to Brews, except by me, just recently, before filing the appeal. I told him what the problem was. I asked him "if you get unblocked, are you going to fill up physics pages with many K's of redundant loquacious chatty comments?" he said "no--- I see this complaint is valid", and I say "Even if other people are stupid?" He says "I've learned to stop arguing once it is no longer productive". Looking over his recent edits, it seems that this is true, and his behavior in this regard has changed.
I agree that all they had to point him to was "Drop the stick", but the problem is that ArbCom was presented evidence that looked a lot worse than that. Brews was artfully made to look like a crackpot. This is what I was unhappy about. They took a minor misbehavior case that could have been fixed with 10 minutes of lecturing about "keep it brief and on-point, and stop arguing once its hopeless", and instead made a topic-ban which serves nobody's purpose. This is why I asked them to relax the sanctions, but to no avail so far.Likebox (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, I am 100% sure (from email contact) that Brews did not try to purposefully poke at or test the limits of his topic ban--- he was genuinely shocked that the topic ban applied to general comments on a 3RR discussion. Nobody would have noticed this "violation", if it wasn't for headbomb combing over everything to find something actionable. You don't understand what a pain this is--- he takes the most ordinary comments like "you didn't read the sources and you don't know this" and says "You are violating WP:CIVIL by calling me stupid". It's that kind of nonsense times 100. So Brews violated his topic ban in a miniscule way accidentally. His ban has already been relaxed several times, the right thing to do is to tell him "Hey--- redact that--- it violates your ban!" The wrong thing to do is block him for a week.Likebox (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) unclear.Likebox (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The way to fix that is to persuade all the hysterics to bugger off and do something more useful, and sit down to discuss it calmly with the arbitrators. Send email to arbcom-l asking the best way to do it if you can't work out a way of handling it otherwise. But I have to say that I don't see Brews being artfully made to look anything, I see him engaging in argumentum ad nauseam and thus becoming his own worst enemy. That said, my point from the outset is not about the rightness or wrongness of the case it's about what works and what doesn't work. In my (fairly long by now) experience of Wikipedia disputes the route of grandiose assertions of widespread abuse, corruption and failure of the entire project is a well-trodden path to nowhere. I can't recall a single case where it has worked. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, My intervention in the case was ultimately for the purpose of getting Brews to drop the stick. I knew nothing about the details until I began querying Brews on his talk page on 1st August 2009. But when I did investigate the matter, I came to the conclusion that he had a perfectly legitimate point. I was never exactly sure how he wanted to write it up in the main article, but I spent a few days on the talk pages trying to at least persuade the other guys that Brews had a subtle point which they hadn't grasped. I tried to persuade the guys who Brews was arguing with to acknowledge that there was an issue that needed to be clarified. By the 19th August, I was pagebanned for my efforts on a charge of soapboxing and fringe physics. That demonstrated how little those guys actually knew about the subject matter. I was then dragged into the ARBCOM case in September and I made good faith evidence submissions in an attempt to calm the situation. I tried to get Cool Hand Luke to see Brews's point of view, but what followed was raw corruption plain and simple. There would have been many reasonable ways to have ended the dispute but ARBCOM clearly weren't interested. A group emerged for the sole purpose of vilifying both myself and Brews ohare, and ARBCOM courted them. David Tombe (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See above. I have no real opinion on the root case, I am simply saying that hysteria is not conducive to resolution. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes being political is a dead end.Likebox (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but being diplomatic rarely is. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, someone diplomatic should step up to help the scientists! Scientists are trained to be blunt, to never make things sound nicer than they are, to be brutally honest. This is the opposite of diplomacy. Brews was trained in science, as was I, and Count Iblis, and David Tombe taught himself several things. Scientists, by and large, are lousy diplomats (or politicians)Likebox (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Not just scientists. Giano is never one to dress things up in pretty words either. But brews' problem was the opposite of being terse, it was being excessively loquacious and never taking "no" for an answer, which is a problem whoever you are. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind ...

Hi JzG,
I hope you don't mind much that I've undone one of your edits; I believe that it would only be seen as a provocation, from their POV, and with Arbcom already deliberating the issue and seeing that the struck retirement template was there before the recent dispute, and not put up to give an incorrect impression, I don't think it's helpful to insist on that template at this point. Let's give Arbcom some time to come to some kind of conclusion first.
Cheers, Amalthea 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar arbitration request

Hello Guy. As suggested at ANI, because you've been involved in trying to resolve this dispute in the past I'm dropping you a courtesy note to let you know I've filed a request for arbitration. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 18:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Format at RfC

May I add Support to your comment here, or will you do it? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Feel free. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7

I removed the CSD A7 tag that you placed on Immersed in Flames as it is specifically not for the albums of artists per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you would like to chat further on this. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up I have PROD'd the article. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it would be patently absurd to interpret the rules as allowing the deletion of unsourced articles on non-notable records by non-notable bands just because we allow the deletion fot he articles on the bands themselves. That would be completely inconsistent. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious

Plan 9 From Outer Space - putting the special into special effects since 1959 - "can you prove it didn't happen?" The ending was so very obviously designed to allow a sequel, I wonder why it never happened? Budget, I guess - it must have cost the equivalent of at least ten crates of soda bottle deposits. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you only just discover the joy of Ed Wood's opus? It's a true classic of horrible science fiction from the '50s. I recommend looking up the RiffTrax for it - it adds to the entertainment value hugely. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I always knew it, but I recently found a DVD on sale for under a fiver and bought it; I was horribly afraid it would be less hilariously terrible than I remembered it from my teenage years but I was surprised and delighted to find that it's every bit as abysmal as I remember, especially the aircraft "flight deck" where the (inaccurate) yokes plainly aren't linked and the use of curtains and plain backdrops to save money. It's a work of genius! Guy (Help!) 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

RFAR

I cannot return to work on Wikipedia without the harassment I've undergone from Durova being dealt with. She has friends in high places, and without it being documented, she will simply continue it. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Guy...

You may want to add another = = to your statement, right now it's showing up as a sub-statement to Privatemusings :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Heaven forfend. I fixed it, thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
what does forfend mean? - I'm always happy snuggling up to Guy..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova has never been willing to agree not to interact with me. I have requested that before, only fr her to continue to show up in every thread I was involved with, and ask for it to be shut down. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 22:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

TLDR

I understand your frustration, but this is inappropriate. I have already mentioned to the user in question about their verbosity. Whether their claims aren't backed up in sources has yet to be established, though even if it were, I'm not sure how one could justify collapsing the conversation without at least a comment saying something to the effect of "well we can't put that in the article without sourcing." — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 19:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • The point was not just that it was excessively verbose but that it's also unusable. You can make that point to him any way you like but those screeds made the talk page too intimidating and unusable for anyone else. Consider making a subpage if you have the stomach for that long discussion. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If you had been following along (and I don't blame you for not doing so), you would find that the conversation has recently turned slightly more productive, so it is becoming more "usable." As for subpages, what I've seen done in the past is a fairly quick archiving of overlong conversations, but this is only once they're done. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction

Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI#Specific question growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI#Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber where I have proposesd that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Crop Circles

Please discuss regarding external links for Crop Circles. You explained your removal of the Lucy Pringle site with a question. That section of the article is in need of archived images. I had just articlulated why that site was appropriate prior to you removing it. The external link guidelines stress quality of information and contrary to popular belief do not oppose personal sites. That site managed to stay up for a few days rather than a few hours. So I assume there were less objections to it. - Steve3849 14:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I've been pruning it of linkcruft for years. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


Shortened report

Thanks for you comment at ANI regarding my (too) lengthy report on Tome Reedy and Nishidani. I have recast my report and made it much shorter. It's pretty inambiguous and concerns serious problems that further discussion would not help. Since length will now not be a deterant, I hope you or some other admin can now help. Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

86.26.123.197

The Songfacts spammer IP? He really does seem to be contributing in good faith, but doesn't understand why Songfacts is not a RS. Care to straighten this out for me, and maybe blacklist Songfacts in the process? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed ban of disruptive IP editor

Guy, thanks for doing the legwork on the IP editor 99.142.1.101. I've proposed a permanent site ban on this individual; please see WP:AN/I#Enough is enough: proposal to ban 99.142.1.101. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Commentary on Brews ohare motion

"I think the input of people like David Tombe seriously degraded the process and impeded a dispassionate view of the issue." I think we're in perfect agreement on this, and I valued your commentary during the motion. I doubt the same result would have occurred but for the counter-productive advocacy from those purportedly on Brews ohare's side—indeed, it only needed one switched vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But Arbitrators should only take into account relevant facts and relevant testimony. You have an open court system without lawyers were anyone can say anything; there are no lawyers to raise objections to the judge. If this is how the system works on Wikipedia (suggestions to change it are fiercely resisted), then you can't blame e.g. David Tombe for speaking his mind freely. Count Iblis (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Tombe and co. obfuscated the issue and made Trusilver out to be a crusader in the cause, which I don't believe he was. It was a close call and their input almost certainly materially affected the outcome. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You may be right, but ideally the system should not work in this way. If, as you say, this happened in this case, we should then not blame David, rather think of how to fix the system. If you have an "open court system", we allow anyone from arguing in any way, but we don't want the outcome of the case to be dependent on irrelevant arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
As my history teacher once memorably said: don't go around expecting life to be fair, 'cos it ain't. Charles Bloxham, wherever you are, I have never forgotten these words of wisdom. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this is not supposed to be an "open court system" at all, and it's most certainly not meant to be a soapbox—nor a platform for users to encourage each other to behave against the best interests of the encyclopedia. When users are disruptive in our dispute resolution process, it's reasonable to remove them from that process. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Whizzer-motorised-bike.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whizzer-motorised-bike.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Time Cube

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Time Cube. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (6th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Phantom mop pain

Okay, I think I'm having phantom pain without the mop. Much like when I forget to put my watch on and spend all day looking at my wrist even though I know damned well it's not there. I have tonight attempted to protect no less than three pages, even going so far once as clicking where the button was supposed to be. Not being able to block isn't such a big deal, because WP:AIV is always monitored pretty well, but there was a range block I really would have liked to make. I think that maybe I never realized how much I was using the tools without thinking about it :) Trusilver 07:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Heh! A well-crafted comment on the noticeboards can get speedy attention, it's kind of interesting to watch and see what gets picked up and what doesn't. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rg Tarc

Hi Guy, regarding this proposal, and having seen this and this from user:Tarc, I don't see Tarc as part of the "fanclub", rather on the contrary from what I have seen. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Still part of the peanut gallery, though. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Geez, I'm stumbling across discussion about me all over the place; a lesser man might start developing a complex by now. Why on earth would you think I was in step with the likes of David Tombe, when I have posted opinions in direct opposition to his own on this matter, and have been cast in the same insipid Javert analogy that he loves to use? Tarc (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It's the whole group of people constantly surrounding Brews with noise. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Which I am not a part of, and I do not believe anything I contributed to these discussions, even the "dead horse" one-liner, are disruptive, negative, or obstructionist. I find tombe's and hell in a bucket's lengthy discourses in brew's defense to be just as counter-productive as you do, which is was I was baffled as to why you think what I have said is anything similar to theirs. Again, my only real opinino on this was that Trusilver should be canned. Now that that has come to pass, I have no interest in this case and nothing to comment on. Would appreciate a removal of my name from your proposal. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Guy. The noise is extremely irritating for people who WP:OWN the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. Guy perceives this an invasion of his territory. Count Iblis (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Or not. Actually I feel sorry for Brews, who I think is a lot more reasonable than you lot allow him to look. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The "you lot" here are different editors with different views who happen to agree on certain aspects regarding the Brews problem (but certainly not on everything about this issue and Tarc does not agree with the rest). You cannot brush them all with the same paint. I'm not David Tombe. David Tombe is not Tarc. Tarc is not Hell in a bucket. Hell in a bucket is not Abtract. Abtract is not Likebox, etc. etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You are all creating an immense amount of noise that drowns out any chance for Brews to have an unpartisan consideration of his various bans. Since you have been so spectacularly hopeless in achieving your objectives maybe you might agree to voluntarily give up this tiresome crusade and give Brews a chance. Spartaz Humbug! 20:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Actually, we've been quite successful in getting Brews sympathy. We did this by arguing for him, so that he doesn't have to argue alone. Brews contested his ban and blocks for several months without getting anywhere.

We have been pushing this cause for a long time now. JzG is a Johnny-come-lately with a slightly better political tone, who senses that the political winds are changing, and wants to belatedly join the winning team. Who should be lecturing whom?

The reason we sound unreasonable is that we are individually minded people, each with our own opinion. We hardly ever agree on anything. But that's life--- the decent people always sound like idiots. Haven't you folks learned this by now?Likebox (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Series of tubes

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Series of tubes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Ah, a series of keeps. Drama over. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't they know who they are talking to?

Re the AN discussion - WR are obviously falling down in their job. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Heh! I like. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Made-up

Template:Made-up has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy JzG's Day!

User:JzG has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as JzG's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear JzG!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not that awesome: I completely failed to meet Jimbo et. al. for a beer yesterday. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
... as did 99.999374% of Wikipedia editors active in the last year. Your point? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
most of them weren't asked, though. 93.186.23.211 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
And that's bad how? Congratulations anyway. Your recent contributions to noticeboards have been some of your very best. Spartaz Humbug!

08:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi. Following your helpful advice, I've been taking a break from anything controversial, doing wikignome stuff like categorization of Economics article. But now I've been dragged into trouble again. I had previously edited Richard Lindzen, adding some material*, which was then deleted by an editor, reinstated by others etc. The editor in question then started an RfC process, which included (what I regarded as) a personal attack on me, joined by another editor. I stated that I wouldn't comment on the substantive question, but sought to respond to the attacks, which only produced more attacks.

Then, perhaps foolishly, I Googled the editors in question (both editing under real names, like me) and found that both of them had engaged in canvassing for Wiki editors on 'climate sceptic' sites, and asked them about it. So, things have got out of hand. I'm going to avoid this article altogether from now on, but if you would be willing to take a look, that would be great.

  • This was a series of statements by Lindzen about global warming, of which I had been critical off-wiki (starting before I knew Lindzen to be the source) but for which I gave a straightforward NPOV account in my edit. Apart from the two editors mentioned, no one else has opposed the edit. But, since I don't have a good grasp of the rules on this kind of thing, I'm just going to steer clear from now on.JQ (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, if you have links to the off-wiki canvassing that would be helpful. Guy (Help!) 06:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's one. This Watts up With That post [1], comment #12 by Mark reads

"Mark (14:50:45) :

man their is a ton of them all working in tandem, i can only make 3 edits a day to an article, they can team up and undo it without breaking the 3edit rule. This is impossible :(

anyone want to go and undo changes to this article other than by mark nutley

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Rajendra_K._Pachauri

Please do soJQ (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the other [2].JQ (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


BTW, I had been ignoring the ANI thread against me and Tim Lambert, on the assumption that the problem was resolved, but I went back and discovered that User:Thegoodlocust , has been stalking my Facebook page (and yours). I guess he must have somehow got access to WMCs page so he could see the friend list. I am seriously annoyed about this.

But, I don't plan to pursue this any more. There are plenty of places where I can make useful contributions without so much grief. JQ (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Long time no see

Glad you're enjoying your music. Couldn't resist having a look at Gibraltar. I thought I'd test the waters! Glad to see you're still spreading sanity and good sense around, BTW. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • What-ho, nice to see you! Are you into cloud computing at all? I guess SaaS is one way you might be delivering your software these days. If you're interested send me an email and we can meet up at a CloudCamp sometime - they are great fun and not in the least formal ([3]). Guys like Joe Baguley from Quest and Simon Wardley from Canonical, the Ubuntu guys, are regular fixtures, and I have some good mates who meet (or rather tweet) up for #storagebeers. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I supposed this is a good recent summary. I'm particularly pleased to have had 1,000,000 hours of professionally shot video go through our system (so far!). Your Camp looks like fun - I'll get back to you on that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Cool. It would be good to see you there, I bet you'd also make an entertaining speaker. We like people who can give real-world use cases and describe what's been good and bad about the model. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's sounding more attractive by the minute... My Cloud Computing talk and panel discussion at BVE 2010 was packed :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This is arranged. I'll let you know the details when I have them. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Excellent! I will look forward to it. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No user page?

I saw your name in a discussion so I thought I would look into it because I suspected you were a sock. Here's a user with no userpage that seems to be doing administrator things. I spent 15 minutes trying to figure out who, or what you are. I found that you are an Autoreviewer but not a sysop and created the account in 2006. I should not have to spend any time trying to figure out who you are or what your priviledges are because they should be on your userpage. There needs to be a policy that admins must have user pages that clearly state they are an admin. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, you have worked out why I have no user page. Am I an admin? Technically no, I am taking a holiday from the sysop bit right now, but check Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG and my logs. We're not into badge collecting at Wikipedia, it's all about whether a given statement makes sense and is rooted in policy. And if that doesn't work for you then try WP:ROUGE. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations (again)! Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mario Morello

What was the point of deleting the article I had started about Mario Morello? As I clearly indicated, there is an article about Mario Morello in the Italian version of wikipedia and, as far as I know, nobody has tried to delete it: it:Mario Morello Monegasque (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

r&I mediation

please do not close mediations unilaterally, without first establishing consensus on the mediation page. thanks. --Ludwigs2 17:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Absolutely every action on Wikipedia is unilateral. You seem to be very determined not to hear the voices counselling you to step away form this one. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you are exhibiting stubbornness. I think you will fail. I have already said that. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
and you may be right on both counts, I don't know. however, the R&I mediation was not going anywhere before I got there, and so the worst-case scenario is that the situation is just the same as it was before. I think I can do better than that.
I'll make you a deal, though. give me 2 weeks more, and if we haven't made significant progress in getting the article in order at that time, I will open a thread on the mediation page and suggest we close the mediation myself. will that work for you? --Ludwigs2 17:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, that sounds fair. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

Are you honestly telling me that you blocked me for reporting anothers attacks against me?

  • And I just blocked you again for block evasion. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

TV3 Winchester Vandalism

Hey...I have a slight problem with some vandalism coming from an IP and now a signed in account. User:64.252.119.50 removed the same reference 1, 2 times over the past 3 days. Today, User:Cameraman8867 removed the same reference again. It is obviously the same person. I have issued warnings to both on all three instances of vandalism. Could you please block both of them? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a WP:BLP issue. There's no urgency to include the factoid so talk to the guy and find out why he's so insistent on removing it, also look for more sources (the one cited is not independent). Never template people in cases like this, they may well have some knowledge you don't. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if my gut is right, I am pretty sure it is the guy himself removing it, but can't, of course, confirm that. I can provide another independent newspaper source for this as well. Gimme one moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Further source added. More can be added from another local newspaper if necessary. I intentionally went out of my way to source this (and source it again) to avoid BLP issues. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Entirely plausible and all the more reason for talking to the guy. I don't have to tell you what something like that can mean to someone. At the very least you need to demonstrate patience and respect, and ensure that he's given every opportunity to raise any factual error. And then, if he doesn't get it, we wield the banhammer and give him a pointer to OTRS. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it, but I will leave a message. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Short and sweet message left. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile I reviewed the content. Laundry lists of names with external links and no Wikilinks (because the individuals are not themselves notable) are not really that useful so I pruned the lot. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
...and I reverted your first two changes. This was previously brought up at WP:BLPN and found no consensus to remove or keep and since they are on every single page from KABC to WABC, I reverted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read the rationale. That edit is nothing to do with WP:BLP, it's a laundry list (see WP:LAUNDRY#Scope) of non-notable individuals with only external links. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) No, this is clearly a way to make a BLP issue with references go away, but covering it up with something else...problem is, nothing is covered about lists of reporters/anchors from television stations in WP:LAUNDRY. Now, I asked for your help not to screw up a page, but to block a vandal. You didn't block the vandal and you screwed up the page. So, you are really not doing what is being asked of you. So, I am going to revert again per WP:AINTINTHERE and find an admin who will do their job. Thanks for wasting my time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and let's add on a violation of the ANI Policy. You didn't notify me of your ANI post. Good thing I have ANI on my watchlist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you do, which is why I didn't bother. That and the issue is not you or the IP but the article, and I wanted more eyes on the article not more sticks to beat you. If you read the guidelines on lists, lists of non-notable individuals with no articles are not something we do. In this case it is beginning to look as if you want the list purely to include this content. That is beginning to look like a problem. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[4]. –xenotalk 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted, thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Younus AlGohar: thanks

Hi Guy, many thanks for the work on sorting Younus AlGohar. The other contentious article is Messiah Foundation International. Sorry: busy trying to prevent database deadlock at the moment, so I don't have time to look myself. Esowteric+Talk 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  • You have no idea how much I value that comment. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Vorarephilia

Good work on nominating that ridiculous article for deletion. I was just about to do the same, but concluded that my attempt would probably be no more successful than yours, alas. Nice try, all the same. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi Air Force image

An IP has posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#Improper Photo regarding an image I see you removed from Iraqi Air Force. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_48&oldid=1143360080"