User talk:JzG/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Removal of sources

I noticed you removed a source here, and while I haven't checked to determine whether the source is a reliable source, you ought to at least include a citation needed tag when you remove a source, particularly if the rest of the information in the paragraph is cited—otherwise it will appear that the subsequent ref is citing the information that was actually covered by the deleted ref. Everyking (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• The rest is not really, and that is just tattle to support more tattle. The site owner has been very naughty, see the Dan Schneider thread on AN. I don't think that personal opinions from individuals with no obvious reputation as an authority on popular culture asserting "The Tug Of The Lowest Common Denominator" are necessary as a reference for the fact that X and Y were another couple on Z soap opera. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You were, of course, right to remove that reference. I had forgotten to remove it when that couple and reference were removed from the List of fictional supercouples some time ago. The rest of that paragraph is cited, though, with valid references. Well, I mean, I will put a valid reference beside Frisco and Felicia in that article (the Supercouple article, to be precise) right now.

• • As for whether or not the word supercouple is interchangeable with the words power couple and dynamic duo, they are in some of the references (valid, of course) in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wild Wales Challenge - proposed deletion

Hi there

I see you propose deletion of one of my articles Wild Wales Challenge. I don't see how I can improve it though. I linked the official site because that's where I got the facts and figures from, and as far as I can see the article is neutral. I don't see much point linking the 1001 other personal/club sites (do a Google search on 'wild wales challenge') as well though, they don't tell you anything new as such. As for being 'not notable' - judging by the amount of people there on the 2 occasions I've taken part I disagree - but again look on Google... I don't see how I can incorporate this into the article.

Sorry if it's not the way things are meant to be done, but I removed the prod notice from article because it's only 3 days from the deletion date and I don't have the time to get it resolved before then.

Iainjones1980 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hang on - just found details on an independent association's site, so I've linked it. Hopefully this addresses the independent sources issue. Iainjones1980 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Que?

Is "running interference" some sort of sporting term? What does it mean? I like to understand remarks people make about me, and English isn't my first language, either. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC).

Running interference is a common term in Canadian football (also in the crap game the Americans play) - it means getting in the way of the person(s) chasing the man carrying the ball. In basketball and lacrosse, it's called a "pick". In the only real sport hockey (with which you may be familiar, having many of the best players and all) it is illegal and results in a penalty. The term can also be used to describe a tactic in business meetings, where you obfuscate to protect another member of your team. Guy might have a completely different interpretation, although I believe interference may also be illegal in his (presumptive) favourite sport. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd rather hear from him, then, if it means "obfuscating" or merely illegal in this case. Bishonen | talk 07:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

As far as I've ever been aware it just means watching his back and heading off attempts to trip him up. I don't watch sport at all, there may well be sporting uses which have pejorative overtones, but that was not intended in any way. The only reason it's a problem at all is because you have to do it - I think we'd all be happier if you did not have to spend quite so much time calming down Giano-related drama. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the term has sporting origins. In this case, Guy is using it in the exact legitimate sense of (our) football - protection. The other case is hockey, where you're not allowed to prevent someone else from hitting your team-mate - but you can beat the crap out of them afterwards if they make a dirty hit. The concept is problematic though on Wikipedia - all too often interference takes the form of hooking and tripping where an editor asks another a perfectly legitimate (and cogent therefore sensitive) question and several others jump in to sidetrack the discussion with extraneous details, and the original point gets lost in drama. Almost like what I'm doing here. :) Franamax (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

One guy has the ball, and two blockers run beside him. They seem useless, except that they run and become interference. It's the same as a fighter escort for bombers. Bishonen is right that it sounds like the same language that some fools use, who say that Giano would have been banned, if it weren't for these people (always, "people" are bad, in contrast to "Wikipedia," which is presumed to be "us" in these conversations) "enabling" him by preventing blocks without policy. To say "running interference" is too close to that foolish charge. Geogre (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And I thought it was a simple and obvious metaphor. Just shows to go you, doesn't it? So many arguments are started by such trifling ambiguities. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility and Giano discussions

Where? I asked Jeochman as well... Arbcom page seems like poor choice, as does ANI, but where? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I guess Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement or something like that. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems to me this talkpage would be perfect. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

Pokes

If this is still true, will swipes like this help here? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am rather tired of that particular series of audio whatnots. Even the one with Brad was dominated by Privatemusings saying how wonderful and important $TROLLSITE is, to the point of distracting from what Brad had to say. To present Filll as one of Wikipedia's finest is a stretch, as I think he would readily admit. I don't have any problem with Filll, but would scarcely call him one of our finest. I must be missing the bit of the noticeboard header that says it's a place for spamming your skypecast. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • At the risk of stating the obvious, a simple nothing like this is how almost all the wikidramas are born. Complete with the gratuitous collateral damage. This was a completely innocuous episode featuring discussion between dedicated and diligent Fine Article editors who talked of nothing between themselves but tips for writing good article copy and improving poorly written articles.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, well, I think it was Privatemusings spamming his skypecast again. We don't have the Signpost posted on the noticeboards, and that has a long tradition behind it. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the problem then one route to solving the problem is simply to address it directly, without begrudging compliments made to other editors or strawmen excuses like WP:Recentism. (FA's like Honoré_de_Balzac, Mary Wollstonecraft, Introduction to evolution, Emily Dickinson, or Restoration of the Everglades don't suffer deficiencies that WP:Recentism is meant to address.) A reply that says, "Not interested unless you replace with better guests" was a pretty oblique way to say what you say you meant, which was "AN isn't the venue to billboard such notices." I'll let you have the last word. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Point made and laboured slightly. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reconsidering Tenmei

Thank you for your participation in WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks . In my view, there was only one constructive outcome; and it flows from something Taemyr wrote: "Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project." Taemyr's suggested mentorship option seems promising. In that context, I construe the following as an initial topic for discussion with a mentor:

• I think that Tenmei has proved Caspian Blue's point for him rather well.
• Tenmei is clearly exceptionally vexatious ....

Thank you for your contribution to the "whole festival of Stupid" in which I begin to figure out how to improve the effectiveness of my Wikipedia contributions.

In an entirely different vein: As you are so conveniently near the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, you might want to explore the collection to learn more about Samuel Robinson KBE[1] and Ronald Niel Stuart VC DSO RD RNR ...? --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin

If you can, would you mind looking over or watching Talk:Sarah Palin? I know it's absurdly big, but it's also a rolling BLP nightmare some days. Kelly is still on semi-break and I'm gonna be short on time the next couple days. You seem to catch stuff fast. rootology (C)(T) 13:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Schneider

User:Crayonedcat seems to be his latest. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Veraciter seems to be an unblocked sock. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And User:Blanton84 and User:Senseiurugawa --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:NormalGoddess hasn't edited since April 2006, but remains unblocked and not on the list at WP:AN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User: Bekaymecca is a possible, didn't start adding links until after the deletion nom of Schneider's article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And User:Shelfgoddess --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Picacipa

User:Tedlam1972 --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexist Swear Words

I have to agree with you that the C word isn't sexist per se. User_talk:Kelly#Sexist_Swear_Words —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryAlffa (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Schneider issue

I support efforts to remove the spam inserted into Wikipedia by sock puppets. But please take care not to remove valuable references from articles while attempting to remove this spam. For example, in the article James Emanuel you removed referenced info with the statement "removing spam masquerading as a source." However, the info you removed was from an interview with Emanuel by Schneider which I inserted into the article as a reference. I hope you are not accusing me of inserting spam into Wikipedia.

My point is that while removing spam is a good thing, removing every reference to Schneider--especially when those references are to interviews with poets like Emanuel, who rarely give interviews--is going overboard. Usually self-published sources are not allowed under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. However, because this is an interview with a notable subject (Emanuel), it qualifies as a reference. This view is supported by commentators on the issue of reliable sources who say that interviews like this are reliable as a source of information on the person giving the interview. Thanks for taking care not to delete sources like this in the future. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just reinserted the references in the Emanuel article, sans the hyperlink. I notice that Cosmoetica has been banned as a spam site. That's fine with me because that should stop this entire waste of time. I assume it won't be a problem if I use these references without the hyperlink?--SouthernNights (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt yur good faith at all, I am just trying to deal with a long-term and widespread vanity spamming problem, which is quite tiresome as you obviously realise. It would be good to know if anybody in the real world other than Schneider thinks that Schneider has any credibility in the fields into which he repeatedly inserts his self-promotion. I note that several sites have removed his reviews and such, which raises some questions for me. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

New pages

I can patroll new pages, what is happened? Sorry, my English isn't very good... I invite answer.--Vatrena ptica 09:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Cosmoetica.com

Responded there. Thanks for your attention.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A thought on Wiki vs Pedia

Hey Guy. Happy weekend to you. I just wanted to run something by you, as you and I have jousted a few times, and we both have a grudging respect for each other's beliefs and actions (plus, you're already aware of the various issues about Sarah Palin).

Where do we strike the balance on being a wiki, and being an encyclopedia? I'm sure there's no hard and fast rules that "This level of vandalism is ok, but this level of vandalism means the article needs to be full protected..." etcetera.

A couple folks I really respect seem to fall on the left side of that scale.. that the highest priority of Wikipedia is being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I fall on the other side of the scale, I guess you could say, being a free encyclopedia.

Obviously, the way you view this scale affects how you read the policy. One of the unprotects of the main article states "This is a wiki". Meaning that despite the things going on at the time (which I would call large-scale edit-warring with a large amount of BLP Violations for good measure), the best benefit to Wikipedia is to have the access available for editing for the maximum time possible. I couldn't disagree more with it, that by keeping a page unlocked during such activity (on a large scale), it is NOT a positive for Wikipedia, and in-fact, can be a gross negative.

I'm honestly interested in reading your thoughts, if you're willing to share. SirFozzie (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of those times when we have to give priority to the "pedia" bit, but I don't see that as antithetical to the wiki concept either - it's just that at this level the concept of open editing does not scale, too many people are trying to edit at once. So we have to make it possible for people to edit by gathering their input, seeing what has broad agreement, and getting agreed content into the live encyclopaedia with reasonable dispatch. I don't think there is any significant dissent that "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" is not to be interpreted too loosely; we already accept that this is "for some values of anyone", since we rightly block and ban those who cause trouble, and it's obvious that we also interpret it as "for some values of edit" since we have protection and semiprotection and we use them all the time. Unfortunately I think that some of the philosophical debate is coloured by personal opinion on the merits of the content. One reason I have kept away from the article itself is that I am a European small-l liberal and Palin's opinions on most things are anathema to me.

I'd like to propose a temporary injunction in the arb case on this, but I can't phrase it right. I think no admin who has expressed an opinion over content should use tools on Palin-related articles, and no admin should perform more than a few editprotected requests in any 24-hour period on those articles. We need to get more admins involved, and help those who do come along to walk away and leave it again for a while, because the more you get into handling the requests the more likely you are to start having opinions on the content, and that looks really bad - the evil Anarcho-Communist-Syndicalist-Capitalist-Liberal-Conservative Cabal at work. We get wingnuts at both ends of the spectrum attacking us for being wingnuts of the opposite persuasion, and this is usually a good sign as it means that neither side has got its way. Anyway, I am off to play with my trains (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Railway/In_progress) so I will come back and give this more thought later. Oh, and not so grudging - I think you are a decent chap :-) Guy (Help!) 10:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wiki vs Pedia". This phrase can also be applied to what I call "antimyspaceism", that is intolerance for things like userboxes, guestbooks, "overdone" user pages, and other non article fluff and the drama between those who want to get rid of most of that (Pedia) and those who use such things and/or find them of value in community building (Wiki). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

Concerning the topic ban of Benjiboi can be found here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Cheers for your input - I've made a topic ban proposal here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hammes Company

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hammes Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CyberGhostface (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Ralph Ovadal article

I agree with your changes; I've done several edits on the Ovadal page for more NPOV myself. But I didn't edit out all that I could because there used to be people who would routinely delete anything negative from the page and turn it back into an advertisement. So I tried to take it slow to avoid rousing those people. If you look at the history you can see how much of an improvement the current revision is compared to the earliest versions. Einamozam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.196.241 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help

You are the interested party, how do I re-write the Hammes Company article so it gets approved. Do you think it's not a significant company? I have a hard time believing it is less signifant than many of the companies that already have pages. I look to your guidance to help define how to get an article approved. The latest version of the article that was posted yesterday included sources, was written from a neutral point of view, had relevant external links, and told the story of how Hamme Company has designed two huge parts of American culture. Wikipedia is a very important resource, and having a neutral wikipedia page for Hammes Company would seem appropriate. Please give me any input or ideas. Thank you! Sharnden (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• You need to read WP:COI and WP:BAI. Also WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory, a part of your company SEO or marketing efforts). Guy (Help!) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

A lovely contribution from the good doctor. Interesting reincarnation. Keeper ǀ 76 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think I must be missing something? Guy (Help!) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I pointed that page out to Keeper. Check his talk page; the main point is that is the doctor's vanity page largely recreated, only without pictures, and in the user space. I thought we had decided it was inappropriate.  Frank  |  talk  19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what Frank said. Didn't we delete this out of userspace once already, with a request not to recreate it? Keeper ǀ 76 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought we left it at his user page with {{userpage}} and the mainspace infoboxes and cats deleted. Since he is effectively a non-contributor outside personal vanity it would probably be deleted by MfD, but I thought we might as well wait a decent interval just in case. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's how it is now (with the template, without the cats). But it is still largely a vanity page. It looks like an end-run to me; the article that was substantially the same was deleted at AfD. Keeper thought perhaps you were mentoring...?  Frank  |  talk  21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Give him a little while to make some kind of contribution, and then MfD it. I really think that's the best option here. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. He's not exactly breaking anything, not exactly being disruptive. I haven't looked (recently) at contribs outside of his userpage. How long are you thinking? A few weeks/month? Keeper ǀ 76 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of weeks should be enough. He's done nothing of substance yet, anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, then; that's cool with me. Wanted to ask a smallish audience to get a sanity check. Thanks for the input (both)!  Frank  |  talk  22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Of course. Just trying to keep the drama down, for once :-) Guy (Help!) 22:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino

Where, exactly, is my ANI notice to go? Dispute resolution with the user is pointless, as the dispute covers his entire history and he has shown no change since he began editing here. Not allowed to do an RfC/U, as that requires mediation, which itself requires informal mediation, which kind of avoids the whole point: he is a consistently disruptive and bullying editor. So what, exactly, am I supposed to do? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And, actually, I dispute that this has been resolved. Yes, this arose from an editor dispute, but this is far, far broader in scope (which is why I brought in his history) than one dispute. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

JzG, as a third party to the dispute between PoC and G2 I'd like to point out that not all users accept the assertion that he is a "disruptive and bullying editor". The current sitution has evolved from a dispute over Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Rather than shifting this complaint onwards through the process might I request you settle it by giving some advice to both users about how to settle this dispute and continue to editing together constructively? Gavin (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are hardly unbiased. And many editors agree that he is disruptive and bullying. UpDown, for one. Dlatimer, for another. I haven't asked the users who were subjected to his behaviour at Talk:Autumn Phillips who came over from the MoS pages. And the current situation, as I have said, is merely the latest in an incredibly long pattern of rude and abusive behaviour, multiple blocks, and multiple (ignored) warnings. Also.. must you follow me everywhere? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a request to JzG to try and resolve this dispute, please don't try and pull me into it. Also, saying I am unbiased is a violation of WP:AGF. I am not following you everywhere, I am simply following through this dispute thing. However, lets not clutter up JzG's page and allow him to respond to our requests when he sees fit. Gavin (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stating that you believe my actions are an attack is not an unbiased statement, nor is commenting on my supposed emotional state (and indeed being rude when asked not to do so again), nor is saying that I am "rude" and "belittling" and "superior", so no, it's not a violation of AGF. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That kind of talk gives me an itchy block finger. My recommendation is that you avoid G2, but if you can't leave the articles he edits alone and vice-versa then you need to use the dispute resolution process. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How, exactly? While I openly agree that this grew out of a recent dispute, my concern is with three years of uncivil behaviour. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there Guy. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Another request

Guy, please reconsider striking your "WR" comment on AN - it paints all who post on WR with the same brush, which is unjust. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll think abut it, but I am heartily sick of this cabal of WR users who accuse Wikipedians of forming a cabal because said Wikipedians oppose their attempts to push a fringe POV. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As am I. I just don't think that lumping all the WR contributors together will help others see the error of lumping others together. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And then???

Your not trying to bait me are you? i get the feeling you are.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not in the least. I am serious. You are, as the current consensus has it, a trainwreck waiting to happen. It would be better to return to the depot. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

email open?

Wanted to get you some information about the section I just archived from ANI, and see what you think of it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're most welcome to email me, if that's what you're asking. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (email sent). It's rather private, but it has to do with some off-Wiki things that have been brought up about on-Wiki behavior. SirFozzie (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Poulenc

...is a good distraction, and for eloquent understatement, with quirky asides, is about the antipodes of the administrators' whinge-board. Good choice. I think I'll put some on myself: maybe the Gloria. Antandrus (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• We have an interesting selection for the November concert: Rameau, Josquin, Messiaen, Fauré, but mostly Poulenc, Un soir de neige and Sept chansons. Very interesting to sing, not easy but sounds fantastic. I am becoming increasingly fond of the French Catholic influenced choral repertoire, I also recommend the Duruflé Requiem. And for a bit of fun, Charpentier's Messe de minuit. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Long Time No Talk...

Sorry to hear about all of your family troubles since I've been gone. I've decided to start editing again, a little. I figure the enormous pile of crap I stirred up has died down and my stalkers are long gone. I won't be an admin ever again, that's for sure. If there's any cleanup or editing you need me to take a look at, you know where I am...  RasputinAXP  00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, good to see you back. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Remote Viewing

I am having a difficult time finding any valid criticism of the work of Stephan A. Schwartz; acceptable to Schwartz by anyone other than Stephan A. Schwartz himself. See Remote Viewing discussion page. How very odd. Perhaps the raising of money from investors for Schwartz's projects has something to do with it. Somebody is paying for this stuff. But then I do have a suspicious nature. Maybe I have seen too much hanky panky. The study of deception does affect you. User: Kazuba 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• What, you mean that a remote viewing participant is WP:OWNing the article and insisting that only pro-RV sources are reliable? But that's unthinkable! Oh, wait, no, it's Situation Normal. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if you want to wade into this unfinished business

Would like to minimize the drama on this if possible. On 30 October 2007, after he started playing around on ANI, you blocked the single purpose account User talk:Masai warrior indefinatly for disruption on LaRouche related articles. At the end of that editor's career as M.w., he had begun ramping up his editing.

On 3 November 2007, User_talk:Terrawatt made his first edit, and has since made several tens per month of edits to LaRouche related articles, consistent with the end of M.w.'s editing. The pattern of edit summaries, as far as they exist, are also consistent.

I'm afraid the Wikistalk results are not as good as I'd like them, given the short history of M.w. and the tendency for LaRouche warriors to shift onto another article after their disruption has been paralyzed. However, the edits to an article on a minor French political candidate are telling and he is surprisingly one of the few LaRouche warriors to hit up the article on the German wing.

Would you care to take the time (and subsequent moaning from the other socks) to block a disruptive LaRouche warrior who you did your best to nip in the bud, or would you prefer I develop things a little further and take this to SSP/AN/I? John Nevard (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I had been meaning to raise the issue of this sock puppetry too. I don't think that TW is the only active sock. If I'm correct then the socks have been used to circumvent 3RR and are trying to skew consensus, so they are being used abusively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are proper avenues in which to pursue sockpuppet complaints, ANI and requests for checkusers. For two editors engaged in a content dispute to seek a out a sympathetic admin to help them win it, is corrupt, and a solicitation for Use of administrator tools in disputes. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Luckily I am not in dispute with any of these editors, and cleaning up when banned users empty their sock drawer all over the place is hardly controversial. Discussion between admins is a perfectly normal and acceptable way to resolve issues like this. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's neither normal nor acceptable when parties to a dispute seek out an ally whose bias corresponds to their own, instead of putting it on ANI for the general community to assess. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In which case it's just as well that I have no obvious on-wiki relationship with the requesters, have never heard of LaRouche before the arbitration case and am not even American. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew I should have kept this to the Guy-Nevard-WBB mailing list! John Nevard (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of having a super secret inner cabal if we then tip our hand on Wikipedia like this? Do try to keep up at the back there!" Guy (Help!) 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Guy, the note you left when closing this ANI thread does not reflect its content. First, you do not mention that several users have confirmed that Jerry, as biased, shouldn't have closed the AfD (coz that's the actual outcome of the discussion, not what it sounds like in your note). Second, I regard "Go and try for some second level amateur sports teams instead" as undue patronization. I didn't come to Wikipedia two days ago so your remark was really unnecessary. Very much unnecessary, I must say, on top of a thread that was precisely about admins using their own opinions above everyone else's. Regards, Húsönd 10:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter how biased he is, the consensus was obviously keep and we don't need to restart the school wars. And I was serious: if cruft needs pruning it is in the legion of unsourced and unsourceable articles on players who ran on once in a second-division match and minor league amateur sports teams whose fans nonetheless think that the sports notability guideline somehow confers exemption form WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT a directory. That comment was not directed specifically at you but at the community in general. This is an area where there is almost as much fancruft as the 40k walled garden. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Guy, I agree that a biased user should be in his right to perform administrative tasks when his bias would not prevent the righteousness of his actions. I think it's okay that he closes a school AfD as "keep" if its outcome is clearly "keep", as I think it's okay that in many other circumstances the involvement of an admin in some matter should not prevent him from doing something that is indisputably right. But Jerry errs when he goes beyond that and adds his explicit bias as rationale directly on the AfD. It was because of that that I contacted him, and it was because of that that I reported to ANI after he snubbed me. Not because I wanted something different than a "keep" for that AfD. And not because I wanted to restart the school wars, quite the opposite. I simply wanted him to realize that biases still cannot be made official policies by whim. Which I think he did, as he rephrased his rationale. Anyway, I apologize for the "undue patronization" accusation above. I was having a sleepless night when I wrote that comment; seems to have affected my mood and ability to assume good faith at all times. Best regards, Húsönd 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do you remember the school wars? Guy (Help!) 15:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do. Sadly. Húsönd 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Then you know what will happen if you challenge the religious conviction that all high schools are "inherently notable", even if there are no sources at all outside of the school itself. Best to pick a fight you can win. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do know that. I thought it was a primary school when I nominated it for deletion. I've given up on picking futile fights over high schools a long time ago. I prefer to wait and hope that the high school bubble will burst sometime in the future. Regards, Húsönd 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I share that hope. I found it intensely frustrating dealing with a group of editors whose idea of a compromise proposal was total acceptance of their position. For lesser schools I think there is now a more or less functioning agreement that if they are not well sourced and sourceable they should be merged, but the whole thing left a bitter after-taste on both sides. I think that had the hard-liners not been around we'd have had a workable compromise very quickly, but that's just my opinion. It's hard not to come across as hating the subject when the debate becomes that bitter, the reality is of course much less black and white than that. And to be honest I harbour a sneaking suspicion that the other deletion discussed simultaneously was a WP:POINT violation, but I really don't fancy opening up the whole can of worms again. If high school kids want to write about their schools and can find decent sources, I guess no harm is done, as long as they don't try to have separate articles on their sports teams as well. My school, of course, is unambiguously notable, having been founded in 948 AD and being the only school in the English-speaking world to number a Pope among its alumni - perhaps if its article was under threat I would feel differently. "Your school is not notable" probably goes down as well with a twelfth-grader as "you are not notable" goes down with an autobiographer. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Very frustrating indeed. I was glad though when a de facto agreement was reached between the warring sides, for the sake of peace of mind for everybody. As I understood this agreement to be, deletionists stopped trying to wipe high schools from Wikipedia both through AfDs and speedy deletions, inclusionists generally gave up on middle schools and primary schools, and both sides stopped trying to reach an agreement on a policy that would never be consensual. Also, both sides avoided reigniting confrontation. Nevertheless, I have been noticing for quite some time now that the inclusionists have been slowly eroding the truce, overly confident that the school wars are over for good and that the inclusionists will always have the upper hand. Which is wrong, as the wars are simply frozen mostly due to the good will (and lack of patience) on the deletionists' part. Articles on non-notable middle schools and primary schools are on the rise, and there's already many categories grouping them. Categories listing articles that simply should not exist. Recent changes patrol, which in the end is hit hardest by having to put up with constant vandalism and insertion of unsourced and/or unencyclopedic content to articles on high schools, now has to put up with middle and primary schools. As the number of these articles grows exponentially, something will have to break. The inclusionists do not seem to care with the consequences brought by the existence of their cruft. What annoyed me the most on Jerry's actions was the perception that the inclusionists are already confident to the point of having an admin within their ranks to close an AfD and state the highly disputed "all schools are inherently notable" as if it were a policy. The way he gave no importance to my complaint made the case even worse. This kind of attitude make me believe that sooner or later the wars will be back just like in the old days. Or, maybe the situation will become so unbearable that the Arbcom or Jimbo will have to impose a definite policy defining what schools are notable and what schools aren't; what content should be allowed in their articles; and how will recent changes patrol be able to take the brunt. Regards, Húsönd 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barresi...

...has been fully protected since 5th April. Your protection note mentions GFDL resolution. I see that the talk page has been basically silent on the point, and there seems no other obvious point of dispute. I wonder if you'd review the need for continued protection? Cheers, Splash - tk 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

• The problem is that every time it's unprotected, the purveyors of idiocy move right back in. They seem to watch it. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Nah, the protection log doesn't tally with that at all. It was last fully unprotected in 2006, and since then the protection level has only gone up; it was last editable at all on the 5th April this year. Doesn't sound from your response like the GFDL issue is still current. Splash - tk 23:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I will re-check the OTRS tickets, which is where this came from. Last four or five times I've been asked it was by people saying "please unlock it, we want to put X fact in" where X fact was the one he has a problem with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A challenge

Here you go Guy, as I suspect you see a fair few pages in your wiki-travels and I know you haev a bee in yer bonnet about cruft. In efforts to counteract systemic bias with sticks rather than carrots (and seeing what non-obscure stubs remain out there), i have listed a minicompetition of sorts here, so I'd be intrigued what comes up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mosedschurte

I admit I have not been following the issues with this user for long as it appears you have, but Moni3 (talk · contribs) has just begun the mediation and the user appears receptive to it. In addition (I hope) the user seems to be agreeable to my recommendation on his talkpage to take a break from the article Harvey Milk. I am not opposed to a block, I just think there are other viable alternatives at this point. Cirt (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, as long as he abides by the mediation that should be fine, but tolerance for disruptive SPAs who take up substantial amounts of time from others with much wider editing interests is, and should be, low. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Hopefully he will abide by the mediation, and take a break from the article Harvey Milk as I recommended. Cirt (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Avast! Read this, me hearties

'Tis September 19th so requests will only be honoured if delivered in the language of the high seas. Shiver me timbers, arrrrr! Guy (Help!) 09:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It be a good thing that I not go overboard into Davy Jones's Locker.. I was about to post this bit of information on the scurvy sons of dogs in ANI... But I think ye'd get a bit of a chuckle out of it..

New Wikipedia Disciplinary Rules

Due to a number of repeat incidents involving scurvy scallawags making the Shipping Lanes a dangerous place, The following disciplinary changes have become Wikipedia policy.

A) Those who fail to edit Wikipedia in a proper manner, will be flogged for minor violations.

B) For more severe violations, such as edit-warring, the perpertrator will be keelhauled.

C) Repeated violations will be met with the forsaken sea dog being Marooned for an amount of time..

D) Serious misconduct will lead to being made to walk the plank.

For the ARRRRRRRRRRRR!bitration Commiteee... SirFozzie (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (sorry, I couldn't resist the Arrrrrrbitration Commitee joke)

/me goes off to move RFAR to "requests for arrrrrrbitration...."

• Q: What's the connection between a pirate ship in pursuit and Vanessa Feltz?
• A: Avast behind!

WP:Inclusion guideline

First off, thank you for making this very sensible proposal. I wish more would see the problems associated with "notability" as a working concept. I've commented here and here and would like to know whether you agree with my personal reasoning for renaming. Everyme 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

LACMA

I see how you removed all of the content I added to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art with the comment calling it spam. I created the majority of this content, I don't feel it is spam, although is does need some work and cleanup. The content was also partially created in response to people on the Los Angeles and Museum projects seeking more detail on the museum. your diff here Why do you think it's spam? Minnaert (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Continued from above, I agree. Hi there, I was wondering if you'd re-consider some of this edit? I have no tie with the museum but a member of the museums wikiproject has been working very hard on this article and I don't think it's fair to say the entire collections section is spam. There is some information there that we include on museums, was sourced to reliable external sources. This especially applies to the overview selection. It's quite challenging to have a museum article without talking about its collections. While those with solely external links to the museum's site needed to go, I think the others were neutral and there's a discussion about this on the talk. I'd ask that you please consider restoring some of the material you removed? Thoughts? TravellingCari 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The collections section was extremely spammy, with weblinks in the style of {{main article}}. It's not the project's fault that the spamming of the museum's PR department has infested the entire article to within a whisker of WP:CSD#G11, but the project could be more assertive in fixing the problem. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Understood. The article has only been on my radar relatively recently and I admit, it hasn't been one of my priorities. It needs work, like most others, and I'm glad to have had your help with it. That said, I think it can be cleaned up via other means other than complete chop. I'm not going to restore it wholly but what I would like to do is take the previous edit with the complete collections information and move it to the museums sandbox, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/LACMA or even somewhere in my own sandbox but I'm not sure how to move an old version while preserving GFDL. Can you help with that or explain it to me? I don't want to start from scratch, but I think Minna and I can probably clean it up in sandbox and then move it back. Thanks! TravellingCari 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• No problem with that. Oh, and "ahoy, me hearty!" Guy (Help!) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Landlubber here! Ahoy, now how do I move an old version? I thought I could move the current one and then "revert" you in the sandbox, but I don't think that works because I want to leave the current article with your changes as is. Thanks! TravellingCari 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Arr, ye find the old version ye wants, opens it in the edit window, copies the text, and then pastes it to the subpage with an edit summary of "from" and the link to the old revision; that preserves GFDL and saves ye being keelhauled for license violation. Fair winds to ye! Guy (Help!) 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Got it, thanks! No idea how to speaketh that in the language of the sea! TravellingCari 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an

I had a run-in with Prom3th3an's trolling today. After he wiped all traces of the incident from his talk page (while logged out, no less), I suspected it might not be the first time he's done it. So I glanced at the recent edits to his talk page and found this. I'll be keeping an eye on him in the future, and it would probably be a good idea if some other admins did too. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm trying to ignore that kind of stuff, but some people pop up so often that it's hard not to. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No COI

I can assure you that I no conflict of interest with the Quackwatch article. I am not a proponent of homeopathy at all. I too think it is bollocks. I am not a practitioner of any alternative medicine. I am in no way professionally involved or have I ever been involved in the business or research alternative or mainstream medicine. I am not a doctor, a nurse, nor do I have any training in healthcare whatsoever (though I really think I should learn CPR and the Heimlich Maneuver). I never heard of Quackwatch or Stephen Barrett before coming to Wikipedia 3 or 4 years ago. Since then, yes, I have formed an opinion about the site, but that opinion has and probably will change as I learn more. I try my best to not let my personal opinion influence my edits, but I think that is a difficult task for any editor. I tell you all of this because I am frustrated by the mischaracterization which I have been getting at ANI currently and beyond. Know that I am in favor of including criticism of Quackwatch at its article simply because the criticism exists and is prominent. I realize that NPOV is not about balancing the positive with the negative, it is about presenting a fair representation of all views proportionate to the significance and influence of such views. The current dispute is about a peer reviewed article in a journal published by Blackwell Publishing, placed online by Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press and written by a professor and member of the faculty of the Penn State College of Medicine. I feel that it is a significant viewpoint and thus should be included. The ANI and the subsequent "warning" I received was based on a misunderstanding and an unfair inference (that by stating "I will revert accordingly" that I must have meant that "I will revert over and over again accordingly" rather than what I really meant which was "I will revert once accordningly"). If you have any further questions about my motivations or intent or any reallife conflict of interests which you feel I have, I would appreciate if you came to me directly rather than speculating in a public forum and subjecting me to further unfair scrutiny. Thanks for understanding. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in the decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described in the findings of fact, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct. The Committee provides a list of six behavioural issues (click to read) which the parties in the case are "specifically instructed" to ensure that their future editing complies with. The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances.

The Committee also notes that editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unaccredited

Template:Unaccredited has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Padillah and the Kochel Catalogue

A couple of things I would like to try and clear up, first being the accusation of forum shopping. While I may not have handled the process of confrontation with Softlavender in the best way, I was not forum shopping. The issue I was trying to bring forward at AN/I was regarding User:Smatprt's rather callus response to my request at WQA. Being a different subject about a different user I fail to see how I was forum shopping. As for my "defeat", I wasn't aware that I was in a competition with anyone. I admit, and have several times now, that I communicated poorly at the Köchel Catalogue talk page. I don't accept the fact that I refused to listen, what I believed happened was I failed to acknowledge that I was listening. I suggest that I listened and put forth growing ideas and gave up in lines that I saw were false-leading, but I did so in such a casual, ham-handed way that others were not allowed to see and accept that I had heard them - thus the impression of not listening. In the end I suggested a table layout that was eventually, after being revisited by an editor much more the wiki-markup expert than I, adopted and even praised by some. I appreciate your attempts to turn this into a learning experience, one suggestion I would make if you are going to turn mentor with others: find a way to listen to their point of view. Try to find a way to see their arguments and what is, apparently, so important that these people have gone to the lengths that they have. The response you gave, after my post explaining to Antandrus that the issue at AN/I was not about the Köchel Catalogue, was still centered in the conflict at the Köchel Catalogue talk page. And, while I appreciate the intent, most everything you said, while correct, was either irrelevant to the subject at hand or something I had already apologized for. You are correct that people need to be self-critical, I appreciate the reminder. I feel you are incorrect that someone else can determine whether a statement was perceived as a "personal attack" by another. That is something that, by its very definition, can only be determined by the offended person (hence the phrase "personal attack"). Just because a person is "wrong" doesn't mean they deserve to be insulted (something I was actually told at WQA). Just because you don't mind the phrase used doesn't mean the insulted party is being overly sensitive. There are people that object to the use of the word "retard" and some that don't (and let's not even get into the various references to ethnicities in America). One group shouldn't be belittled simply because they have what amounts to a different belief system. I'm not trying to argue that my response was correct, it wasn't and I've acknowledge such to BMW, whom I've thanked for respecting me (if not my feelings) and correcting my approach to the process. I do feel that Smatprt's response could have been phrased more appropriately and demonstrated more respect for me as a person. I am currently in discussions at the WQA talk page on how to approach this with the editors on that page. And thank you for letting me address this with you. Padillah (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for coming by. I think that the cue for seeing this as a battle (with implicit overtones of victory / defeat) came from the way you chose to present the issue. I looked through it as one who has had many disputes, often caused by foolish pride and stubbornness, and saw several points at which you could have swiftly defused the situation. Like the sortable table issue I mentioned on the noticeboard. What happened was that you wound up a dispute; yes, there were some touchy individuals involved, but life is full of touchy individuals. You can't fix that by being touchy yuorself, can you? I'll say more shortly, I am in the middle of something right now, but don't feel too personally about it is the short version. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Walker Colt

I believe you owe me an apology. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for stating your belief. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6

A while back, you courtesy-blanked Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6. However, I don't see anything obviously problematic in the edit history of that page, and I'd rather we didn't have to conceal an entire page of archives of this noticeboard on account of something which must have made up a relatively small percentage of the page. Would there be a problem if the page were unblanked? If so, could just the non-problematic content, whatever that is, be unblanked instead? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I chose to blank all of it because a selective blanking would make it blindingly obvious who the complainant was, and we have a long history of snide attacks against that person. So I'd rather not, thanks. Guy (Help!) 06:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hinkley Point C

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question re the planning inquiry? I thought the govt was changing the rules so we didn't have such things any more.— Rod ^talk 09:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hinkley Point C

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question re the planning inquiry? I thought the govt was changing the rules so we didn't have such things any more.— Rod ^talk 09:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• David was lead counsel for the proposers at Thorp, Sizewell B, Heathrow T4 and T5. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Will be emailing you very shortly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Beautifulness

This is the part of JzG that people don't see, or refuse to see, or choose to ignore. You went way beyond the "call of duty", once again, and I am thoroughly impressed. Just sayin. Keeper ǀ 76 20:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why thank you! Now vote for my DYK at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on September 25 - did you know that Cleckheaton station was stolen in 1971? Wow! Guy (Help!) 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Canvasser :-) Apparently, you need a 20% expansion. Might I recommend a a pump? Keeper ǀ 76 21:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It already got expanded a bit. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Was going to ferret around to figure out what is there now, but need coffee and breakfast before getting off to work. (7am here). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a "vote" there. I don't do much with DYK, but meh, the article looks good. Nice work :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish more DYK hooks were really off the wall like that. I love mad facts :-) Guy (Help!) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was musing along those lines myself, that every 2nd or 3rd one I work up has something really quirky. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as I have your attention and good favor, the good doctor's userpage is growing in girth, and he's receiving warnings on his talkpage about the spammy nature of it all. I'm thinking another blanking (followed by a full-protect of the userpage, sigh) is in order. Your thoughts? Keeper ǀ 76 01:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that has plenty of mad facts on it, we should get him to write a few DYKs....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Guy (and others) have tried to get that particular user to use his expertise as a doctor on anything other than his own (non-notable) bio/resume. Sigh. I'm thinking blanking/protecting/blocking. But I'll leave it to Guy's good judgment. Keeper ǀ 76 02:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. I am tempted to simply nuke it, but perhaps we should MfD it? Guy (Help!) 06:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

An MFD might be in order, I agree. Keeper ǀ 76 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Piglets!

Marble the guinea pig has two enchanting babies, pictures here: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Pigs Guy (Help!) 08:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 

Re Skoojal's block

Hi Guy. Skoojal was in contact with me a day or two ago by email. Pursuant to the final comments at the ANI thread I've asked him if he'd accept mentorship and a topic ban from biographical articles and all biographical materials (to be reviewed after 6 months). He's agreed to this. I think this is a fairly reasonable measure and I'm sure somebody at WP:ADOPT would be willing to take him on. I would do it myself but I will be extremely busy and occasionally absent during the next six months and I'd prefer someone who will be more regularly on wikipedia to take on this role. Also it might be helpful if we formulate an exact language for the topic ban to prevent any future confusion--Cailil ^talk 11:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem with this, once the pieces are in place please post on AN or ANI and let them know I consent to unblock if I don't chip in promptly. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

White people

Hi, I noticed you deleted the gallery from the White people article. I don't have a problem with this, but I did put all of the images you deleted into the gallery at the commons because then at least we keep the gallery together. Will you delete the gallery at Black_people#Gallery? It must be just as inappropriate there? Alun (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

White people

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

than stop edit warring if your are an admin you should know this,and i am a regular edior on that article and have not ever seen you edit there before--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are being fatuous. Now would be a great time to stop. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

and you gave your opinion on why it should be removed thats great, your not a special case.--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the gallery should be removed, but someone with as much experience as you should have a little more clue than to persist in edit-warring to get your way; I don't need to tell you you're on the brink of a block. There is good faith on all sides and we haven't discussed the issues on the talkpage yet—this is far from a situation where reverting your opponents is justified or productive. Sincerely, the skomorokh 20:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

listen please keep your cronies away from my talk page with bogus warniings it borders on harassment,

especialy when im trying to do the right thing and i am in favor of having no images in the article open up your eyes and read the talk page--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guy, just as a heads-up, you're currently at 3, so please be careful. --Elonka 21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, I can count; one edit, two reverts. Discussion is underway at talk:White people, no drama. I'm busy uploading more pictures of weapons-grade cuteness: [2]. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, serious armament there.  :) --Elonka 22:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for exemption on editing restrictions

Hi Guy,

Havn't organised a mentor yet so ill ask you, I would like to add a request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Acc is that ok? override-antispoof was just granted to the group and im involved with acc. Cheers   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that is probably uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)