User talk:JzG/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Mk5384

I've been thinking that I may need to apologise to you. Whilst I still feel that your original block of me was unjust, I do have the feeling that you were doing what you honestly felt was best. Furthermore, I directed my anger at the person who started this issue ( and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't still angry) at you, which was inappropriate.Mk5384 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• JzG, I found the above at help talk:Contents and assume it is for you. The link there in your sig may be the culprit... (as most signatures are in the form of Userpagelink (talkpagelink)). –xeno^talk 12:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Shivanshkhare

• Could you watch this guy → Shivanshkhare (talk · contribs) ←, he's been illegally uploading a lot of copyrighted images without the author's permission to Wikipedia. Thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, I could help him if indeed he was the photographer but from the looks of it, I really doubt it. FYI, I'm an avid photographer and I'm more than willing to help if he were to ask me but he's been all quiet. Which is bad and good, because some of these folks of India sub-continent (including those from Pakistan and Sri Lanka) can be very difficult to work with or are downright hostile towards our no-nonsense approach at Wikipedia. Regards. (PS: A simple search using google reveal that the images exist at a couple of website, so obviously he is not the photographer.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just applying a bit of WP:AGF. Next one gets a block I'd say. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner

You haven't forgotten about the uncontroversial page move, right? (half an hour passed since the deletion) ♠TomasBat 19:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh I expect I have, I have the attention span of a particularly skittish gnat and I got an OTRS email just after it. Let me have a look now. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just went to the article and saw it was deleted, pending a page move, but I didn't know what the name of the page to be moved to it was, so I assumed you, the deleting admin, must know; so yes, I think its all ok know (and thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten I could've done the move myself). ♠TomasBat 19:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous assumption! As it happens the tag did say but "what links here" usually finds it quickly. No foul, as I say I got distracted so the fault is mine. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lean Enterprise

What suggestions would have to make the page look less like spam? Sinesipm (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• More references, more text from reliable independent secondary sources, less namechecking, that sort of thing. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

U.World

Hi JzG, Thank s for your comments about Mohammed Sanduk article. Your comments are really quite interesting and useful for me. I would like to mention:

• This is my first time to edit, and you note that.

• Most of theoretical physicists and senior scientists have a wide range interests. The logic of science is extended to cover many areas.

• In this article there is no publication of any original research to be violating Wikipedia criteria.

• The references of the article are mentioned in the Google Scholar please search for M. I. Sanduk. But still Google Scholar can not show all the journals and publications.

• The article, that explain Bohm’s constant is published on “Indian Journal of Physics” (IJP) (Before 2004 it was called “Indian Journal of Physics and Proceedings of The Indian Association For The Cultivation of Science B”) , which is one of the International journals and published now by Springer the well known international science publisher: http://www.springer.com/physics/journal/12648 It is not an obscure journal!

• The very influential (unorthodoxy) researches, has its own journals like Aperone and others. Some of the electronically published articles in arxiv find a chance to be published in science journal ,” but some work, including some very influential papers, remain purely as e-prints and are never published in a peer-reviewed journal. A well-known example of the latter is an outline of a proof of Thurston's geometrization conjecture, including the Poincaré …”arxiv.

• Sanduk was head of laser engineering department in Al-Nahrain University, and is charter physicist. He was supervisor for more than 30 post-graduate students. The present article is not a CV, but focuses on his distinguished activities.

• Iraq was isolated (1990-2003). During this hard period Iraqis had no access to internet. The connections with outside were censored, and the international scientific publication was impossible. His scientific articles (Like that of Bohm factor) were faced hard way to send outside of Iraq to be published internationally. At that time this was a quite dangerous attempt. So far Iraqi IT systems still needs to be developed. After 2003 he became head of laser engineering department, started contact with the international science community, got membership in Institute of Physics & the charter status, membership in American Physical Society, and started attending international conferences….. In an e-mail from Prof. Cynthia K. Whitney (Editor and Publisher) about the story of gear model she wrote “I have to marvel at the many hardships that some of my fellow scientists go through. Your story shows a lot of courage on your part. I sometimes wonder if America has started movement in a direction that is good or bad in Iraq, but your story encourages me that there is indeed some good developing there”.

• The present article demonstrates a hidden straggle to survive for a freedom of creativity. People in the west may have no idea about this type of hard times.

• Sanduk’s present visiting post in the “University of Surrey” is to keep him in touch with academic life, and offers support to post graduate studies and researches. • Thanks again , U.World 3 April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U.World (talk • contribs) 13:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case do you advice me to remove it? U.World —Preceding unsigned comment added by U.World (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandstein/WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement

Have you taken a look at this? Despite any issues I have had with Sandstein, I think he is on the right track with this, I think it could use some input by some of the more rational editors on the project. Trusilver 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it has merit, I also think it needs to mature a little with additional input. Oh, and I think that arbitration enforcement should be recognised as a source of burnout and we should have more admins doing it but for shorter periods. Incidentally, will you be going for another RfA some time? Guy (Help!) 10:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh hell, it's possible, but not for a while. I'm enjoying the simplicity of NOT being an admin right now. I really forgot how nice it was to have no responsibility whatsoever. Trusilver 14:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I entirely agree. Mind you, I also like doing OTRS work, and that's a lot easier with admin rights, which is why I requested the bit back recently. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's also the issue that I am not in the right frame of mind right now. If I were to start an RFA today, it would be to give ArbCom a slap in the face. As appealing as the idea sounds, it's not a good reason to become an admin again. I'd rather wait until I'm ready to do it for the right reasons. Trusilver 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I admire your ability to examine and be honest your own motives. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

XpanD 3D

XpanD 3D, which you tagged for speedy deletion, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XpanD 3D. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Case request

Hi... See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Lar and Carch's reply to my comment. I would urge you to bring the case to that enforcement page. I may be missing something but it seems fairly cut and dried by the standards of that page and I expect your proposed resolution at AN would be adopted. Best. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could raise the CC related material at that page anyway? ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

U.World

Thanks JzG, Yes would you please move the article to my space. --U.World (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

unblock-en-l

You should start getting the unblock-en-l feed now. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 11:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, cool. I worked out what I did wrong last time - I have two addresses which both deliver to the same inbox (one filtered, one not). Guy (Help!) 11:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bongo

Hey, thanks for the note. I didn't write any of the text, but was rather removing that which was clearly not properly supported. I am glad to see the article was deleted, though. I think that Senate document was a perfectly good source, but deletion was probably the correct resolution. Yworo (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• No problem, just making sure you were up to speed on the wider picture. I agree that deletion was the right result. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions

You recently deleted Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) and Natasha Black. I'll admit, neither was a very good article. But Natasha Black had been nominated at AFD just today, and only one other editor voted on the deletion. Shouldn't such a process be allowed to run its full seven days? As for Moshe Bar, the article was barely a mention, but the scientist seems to rate some notice, based on his running a fairly high profile laboratory at Mass General / Harvard Med. Google scholar shows his articles are fairly heavily cited. As the DB had been removed on his page (by me), isn't an AFD in order? (The deletion was not non-controversial, as at least one other editor agreed that the content deserved an airing.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Moshe Bar was a malformed disambiguation ("The purpose of this article is to distinguish..." and so on), I am trying to find out from the creator (who has contacted OTRS via email) what the purpose of this is; as an associate professor I do not think they are even trying to have a separate article, there's no indication they even want one, I think for some reason that the associate professor simply wants to distinguish himself from the other Moshe Bar. I'll get back to you when I've got a response as to why this is.

For Natasha Black the hint is in the first !vote: I removed some negative unsourced material that was added twice by the creator. I think you can understand the impact of an attack vector hanging around for a week while we decide to delete it, on someone who has been the victim of a negative bio. As always there is no prejudice to re-creation of a neutral version and I will WP:REFUND the contents for anyone who wants to create a compliant version and for whom the old text would form a useful basis. In many cases it's better to WP:FORGET but I don't mind letting another user in good standing make the call.

I hope this addresses your concerns? Guy (Help!) 08:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When first written, Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) was a very short article with a malformed hatnote referring to the other Moshe Bar. I corrected the hatnote and created a legitimate disambiguation page to list both articles. I also expanded the page somewhat since it seems that, at least at first look, that this associate professor is doing some pretty important work in the field of cognitive neuroscience. Not being an expert in that field I thought the article deserved to hang around enough to be improved. I'll admit the article had problems (not the least of which was the fact that the author is one of Bar's students), but those issues could have been addressed.

The "negative unsourced information" in the Black article was neither negative nor unsourced. The "controversy" surrounded Black's support of a former girlfriend in the girlfriend's legal troubles. Since the fact was controversial (not negative) and referenced, it should have been allowed to remain. And even if one does concede that there were attacks in the article, we should not delete articles simply because they have been the subject of attacks. If we went in that direction, most of the articles on any prominent person would soon be deleted. The community is vigilant enough to throw out the bath water while saving the baby.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't think either of these articles were very good (I was the one who nominated the Black article for deletion), but I feel that your actions (deleting an article that had already been nominated for speedy and then declined; and deleting an article with an open AFD with no explanation or note at the AFD) subvert the deletion processes that are in place at Wikipedia. I don't intend to recreate either article as I don't really have any information on either subject. I just wanted to express my concerns about your actions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand, the reason I removed the Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) was simply that it made no claim to notability. Associate professors typically don't make WP:PROF and past experience indicates that a week of withering scorn is a potential outcome when such things hit the usual place. I don't think that would have been a great result since it does seem to me form my interaction with the creator that they don't actually want an article, only to make it clear that there is more than one person with that name. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Rankin

Thanks very much for dealing with Andrew Rankin from my note on WP:BLPN.

Was that the correct place to raise my concern in that case? (Other than fixing it myself, of course)  Chzz  ►  09:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, BLPN is a good place for any concerns related to BLPs. It is watched by a lot of people, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wobbling

What evidence is there that Wobble2600 is Grundle2600? –xeno^talk 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Gagablabla. –xeno^talk 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Spidey-senses. And the contribution history, especially Wobble2600 - that looks like a deliberate "look at me I'm a sock". Guy (Help!) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more likely this is the person who was grave-dancing. –xeno^talk 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, can a reblock correct that they are Syntax and not Grundle? Grsz¹¹ 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to get those spidey-senses calibrated. =) –xeno^talk 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell, I wish these idiots would just sod off and play somewhere else rather than trying to get us to guess which particular idiot is responsible for which bit of idiocy. What a colossal waste of everyone's time. The spidey-senses don't say which fly it is, only that it's a fly :-) Now I'm off to create {{Find somewhere else to play}}. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pointer?

Can you please point me towards the discussion on the Foundation wiki that you refer to on Bell's talk page? I'd like to take a look. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Camerata Zelter

Seems the creator has re-added the page with the {{db-spam}} tag still in place. Possibly a Edit-conflict ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Think you may need to do it again :-) Codf1977 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Helen Rollason Cancer Charity

You recently deleted Helen Rollason Cancer Charity. I found some references that suggest notability. Could you please restore the article?

• http://www.harlowherald.co.uk/content/hlwherald/news/story.aspx?brand=HLHOnline&category=NewsHarlow&tBrand=HertsCambsOnline&tCategory=newslatestHLH&itemid=WEED12%20Nov%202009%2015%3A05%3A43%3A043
• http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/countywide/4288958.Open_day_at_cancer_research_lab/
• http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/4640178.STH_WOODFORD__Charity_shop_volunteers_honoured_for___370k_haul/

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK, but please clean out the blatantly promotional edits by Helen Rollason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Shams Khel

Hours after you deleted the article for A7, a user by another name recreated the identical article. I tagged it as an A7 again but wanted to let you know about the situation. OlYeller^Talktome 13:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• This guy has been trying for days and posting the same semi-incoherent text time after time, also at Shams khel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please see if you can impart Clue. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked his talk page and it looks like he's removed db tags at least 6 times. I'm going to check his edit history and see if there's any more similar incidents with other pages being recreated. I also leave a message and try to explain what's going on in case he doesn't understand. OlYeller^Talktome 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ihsanss86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shumayel86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Quack quack. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lame. I thought he might be socking. I'll look for more. I left a message on Shumayel's talk page just in case. OlYeller^Talktome 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• 200.55.135.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zia86khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (most likely)
• Pencilsuperman246810 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably but has a very short history)
• Shahidkhanswati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (only one edit ever)

The IP user falls slightly outside of the edit period but it has edited a majority of the pages that Ihsanss86 has and has been blocked as well. "86" seems to be a pattern as well. OlYeller^Talktome 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zia86khan Guy (Help!) 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Silvio Ionescu

Thanks, that beats waiting a week, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure it does...except that it's a little outside process.

Guy - regarding your closure...can you provide diffs to support We do not need articles written by people whose sole professed purpose on Wikipedia is to document a purported scandal involving a living individual ? I'm not saying I think the article was good (it wasn't; that's why I deleted Silviu Ionescu from main space) or even that it met notability guidelines, but...whatever happened to WP:AGF, WP:SOFIXIT, and just plain communicating with the editor in question? If s/he really was singularly bent on defaming the subject, it would become clear pretty quickly. But what if the editor thinks they are writing an article that meets community guidelines and just doesn't know any better? Is summary deletion without a single lick of discussion toward the creator and primary editor of the article going to improve anything?

I don't feel strongly enough about this to go to DRV (not even close, really), because to me this isn't a content issue and I actually agree the content itself was unacceptable. I'm here because I think the process that was followed could have been more editor-friendly. We admins are sometimes accused of being a capricious lot; this sort of non-engagement doesn't help, in my opinion.  Frank  |  talk  15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

First up, WP:BLP applies everywhere not just in article space, and so by extension does WP:CSD#G10 - if it was a G10 in mainspace then it's a G10 full stop. Second, Ronald2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows everything you need to know, especially the first edit. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No disagreement on applicability of BLP; G10 is a grey area. There have been discussions more than once on this point; see, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. Regarding the user, just because their first project is to write an article on a particular person doesn't mean that is their sole purpose, and at any rate, being a single-purpose account isn't in itself against any policy I know of. It depends on whether the purpose itself is within policy. Defaming a living individual certainly wouldn't qualify; writing a balanced article about said individual - even if it on the whole doesn't make the individual look very good - would qualify. Again, I am quite against the content as it was written, but I'm talking about process here. I don't automatically draw the conclusion that this article can't exist; only that it shouldn't as it was written. Userfying it and engaging the editor in question seems to be the right way to go, especially given the amount of work that was apparently already put into it.  Frank  |  talk  16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked the contributions, they were to multiple articles but all with the same purpose. I think the user is outraged by this real-world event but has not understood policies, that's why I have not blocked them. I agree that it is quite possible that a neutral and compliant article on this person could be written, but this was not it and was not even a good starting point. My view on process, which I know is not universally shared (ahem) begins with "f" and ends with "uck process" - I have spent enough time on OTRS queues to know that waiting a week while we examine our navels is not a good result for the article subject. I will happily [{WP:REFUND]] any such material for long-term users who want to write a neutral biography. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough explanation. I do disagree in this particular case but I also understand there are times when process can be accelerated to good result. I will now go examine my navel and wait for someone to ask for that refund, which (if anyone is reading) I will also provide on request.  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion even while I differ with it. Thank you for being uncommonly civil about this, and rest assured that if you choose to rebuild a compliant article I will do what I can to manage the subject's expectations. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well now, it looks like the refund has been requested. Do you want to handle this? I'm kind of thinking it's your albatross now :-)  Frank  |  talk  15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he needs a refund, he has already got a copy saved and has added the exact copy to the mainspace once today and also removed it, he does need to read the BLP policy and perhaps others, also some simple copyright reading would be good as the first newspaper article I looked at had the picture he uploaded to the wikipedia as a copyright violation that has since also been deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Handle" doesn't necessarily mean restore the article; in fact I deleted the re-creation as well. Someone needs to ascertain true intentions (and perhaps hand-hold through the WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:FIRST discussions), and I'm sorta nominating Guy.... :-)

Albatross? Do you get wafers with it? Guy (Help!) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ec. Sorry if I wasn't clear Frank, I saw you deleted the new one, hand holding, Guy? He needs to read a couple of policies and understand he is attempting to create a BLP about a single crime, if he wants to create an article about a hit and run crime then he needs other issues explained, the specific crime is not notable. He is on a lose lose path, what he wants to do is not what policy allows. is it? IMO. I recommend he gets a blog. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's all well and good for us regulars to discuss this here, but in the meantime an editor has in apparent good faith requested info on how to proceed. We have wafers (Guy), "get a blog" (Rob) and "hand holding may be required" (Frank). But...which are we implementing?  Frank  |  talk  16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I left a note on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please delete the account Ronald2010 also thank you. Ronald2010 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Ronald2010 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the case not Notable?

Just to question the level of notability of the case: How exactly would you quantify notability?

I.e. I look at another article I used to touch on [Meredith Kercher]. Both are notable for only one single specific incident (A hit-and-run vs a murder), and both involved a few countries (The hit an run involved a Romanian who hit a Malaysian working in Singapore, the murder case similarly crossed international boundaries due to the nationalities of the victim and prosecuted).

Do a search on "Silviu Ionescu" compared to "Meredith Kercher" on Google (web) and Google (news), a comparison of both searches show more results and entries for "Silviu Ionescu" than "Meredith Kercher".

The fact that in the case of Ionescu, it actually triggered diplomatic response and action from the countries involved is possibly a contributing factor., but that should not take anything away from it.

So back to the test for Notability:

From the Google news result, the test for significant coverage is passed.

Again from the Google news results (which quotes multiple news sources), and also official responses from both foreign offices, the test reliability is passed. Ditto for the test for sources.

It is inevitable that the article will veer close to BLP issues, considering that the article is after all about a person who rose to notoriety because of the hit-and-run. The best we can do is craft an article that as reliable and well documented as possible, creating an article based on info as is, without biased writing.

I see from post above that Ronald2010 was already working on an article on his own user subpage for it, but it was deleted. Is it possible to revert it? Someone already mentioned that there were links and references provided, so at least someone else who wants to try to craft a better page need not start all the way from scratch. Or if it is really bad, at least we know what to avoid. We could always tag the subpage article as a Draft/WIP/neutrality-questionable content in the meantime.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zhanzhao, I am the original writer of that deleted article on Silviu Ionescu (Ronald2010). Thank you for the input above. I am now discussing this issue with | Frank Perhaps we can do all the discussion in one place so that it is easier for me to reply. Thank you !

By the way, I would like to add my appreciation to you for asking if the article in my own user subpage was deleted and to restore it. Well, I have a copy. There was a discussion between Frank and the whoever on that day both my articles in the main space and my user space were deleted. If I get the picture correctly, Frank deleted the main space article and moved it to my user space. Someone even deleted that, this was why I was very enraged. I don't need to restore that article because I have a copy, and I did a test by putting it back, it worked. Someone therefore accusing me of "re-creating" it and warn to block me. Which was not the case, I did a test and make sure that it is ok, then I took it off immediately. I am still very unhappy about the way my articles were deleted. As Frank said, the process could had been more 'editor-friendly'. Whoever is trigger happy, please reflect on yourself. 121.7.53.23 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Terri_Summers

Hi! I was wondering why you changed the Speedy Delete of Terri Summers to a regular AfD. I thought WP:HOTTIE was just a gag-guideline. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Notability was asserted. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

With what reliable references? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't much matter, notability was asserted (multiple appearances in major magazines). AfD can work it out. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokie! 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cabo Rico

Please expand on the problem with article. Thank you. RJ (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#G11 explains it quite nicely, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It says, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." What specifically is promotional about the article? I will edit the article in userspace to be acceptable. Thanks. RJ (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:R_Jordan/Cabo_Rico_Yachts. RJ (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• It read to the person who tagged it, and to me, as if it was written by a yacht broker or someone selling the things. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disclosed exactly that...Can you put a finger specifically on what it is? Any help much appreciated. The company has enough notability, I think, so if written right, it would help educate people interested in the topic and help Wikipedia. RJ (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FreeKick

Do you use the same standards for all MMOG game articles? Most of them are obvious advertisements placed by the owners. Or you didn't notice that they're referring only to themselves or MMOG game review websites? FreeKick won the Game of the month award, and the owner was interviewed by real newspaper. I think it's enough for Wikipedia, but not enough for you idiotic bastards. Speedy deletion, huh? Whoever employed you and gave you power is a real idiot. You're an amateur and have no idea how to follow rules, but you do use them at your own discretion to create "justice". Nerd. BTW I'm just a fan of FreeKick and not affiliated with them in any way. Cafa80 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your only edits to Wikipedia ever have been attempts over a couple of years to make an article on this game. I'm afraid that is going to result in my giving your opinion less weight than I would give that of someone who contributes here and understands our policies. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I'm not sure whether or not you are following this discussion. Feel free to add anything if you feel it appropriate. (I'm really sort of amused at how this is turning out, as I am the one who actually deleted the article twice, even though I'm the one who called for a bit more process.) :-)  Frank  |  talk  13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TeleCommunication Systems, Inc

You deleted TeleCommunication Systems, Inc as promotional. I think the company may be notable, based on this search. If you restore it to TeleCommunication Systems, without the Inc, I could try to add references and make it less promotional. Sometimes it's best to replace a {{db-advert}} to a non-speedy {{advert}} with a request to the article's creator to fix it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• You may be right about notability but the creator, Dinesh reddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), works for the company so can't fix it without violating WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Judy Wood Notability

Isn't this a notable secondary source though?

Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html

Please let me know. Thank you.

The two reasons given for the deletion of the content was: 1. She is not notable. 2. Copyright violation. I have copy right permission from her personally, and I was going to have her email the permissions list until all this happened. As for a notability, Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and her court case made it all the way to the Supreme court. She discusses her research and the court cases on the very popular Washington DC Radio Station WPFW 89.3, on the Ambrose Lane 'We Ourselves' show. There are many other places she has presented, but this is one of the most mainstream and credible places. Considering that Dr. Wood has done more to bring about truth and justice regarding 9/11 than many other 9/11 researchers who are mentioned in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think some information about her should be added to the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC).

Nicole Ray

I've noticed you've deleted Nicole Ray. She is clearly a real person, has a prolific filmography, and has been nominated for several awards within her industry. These could clearly be gleaned from the article you deleted. Could you explain why you keep deleting her?--Thiseach (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Being nominated is not the same as winning, especially in that industry where you could win every single award going and still never achieve even a passing mention in a mainstream source. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

added new convenience link

Hi, I have created WP:BLPTALK, please delete it if you find it inappropriate. Best, Unomi (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that section also cover non-talk user space? All non-article space, in fact. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that Wikipedia has no safe haven for violating WP:BLP. Having handled a lot of tickets where Wikipedia has been abused as an attack vector I can only applaud that. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I choose BLPTALK simply because I consider that to be the most common scenario, it is also fairly easy to remember / infer. I considered BLPNONARTICLE, but...

WP:BLPZERO for Zero tolerance perhaps? Unomi (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

After you warned me

I was automatically banned. I would have seen your warning and removed any referenes to it, but I was banned automatically. I only seen it now basically. I still don't understand why it's WP:BLP but I would have accepted what you told me as an adminstrtor. Can you lift than ban? I think it's quite... strange ban. Especially the rationale - someone that attacked me and rv'd me on articles went and told him to ban me? Is that acceptable? Amoruso (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean by automatically banned. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My ban

thanks for posting a comment on the WP:BLP issue. It's not based on anything else that is recent. It's the first WP:BLP violation and a mistake. I wholeheartedly would have listened to your warning!! I appealed to administrator user:Sandstein here on the reasons I did it. It was supported by an WP:RS so it wasn't out of the blue. I apologize sincerely for doing this and I think the ban should be lifted. Amoruso (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe you. Let's see what transpires. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you! Amoruso (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Splash Fashions

Hi you have deleted the Page Splash fashions, Splash (UAE) which is part of the landmark group is very much a legitimate and important enough company to warrant a mention on wikipedia. Please advise on how I can change the write up to make it nuetral in voice (although that was my intention the first time around) to avoid deletion. It was even voted superbrand in 2010 (only among 40 brands in the UAE chosen including household names like nike, coca-cola etc. I believe that a page on wikipedia is necessary for this brand, kindly advise on edits required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bala1729 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• See WP:CSD#G11 and for both this and the other artticle of yours that was deleted WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rephrased article to meet neutrality standards. Await your feedback

Have you considered adding independent third party inline citations? You can see some examples of how to do it here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is Splashf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Splash Fashions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back for another bite at the cherry. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL - Somehow I was expecting that! Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Winfield Reformed Church

Hi. For the recently deleted section at Winfield Reformed Church, were ALL the sources unreliable (hence, all info warranted deletion)? I agree there were some negative (or even slanderous info), but there did contain true information amid all the negatives. I am probably not more of an expert at Wiki than you are, so I ask if you can review the section again and restore reliable information.Pc1955pc (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I removed it as lacking reliable sources and giving undue weight to a trivial matter, also because some of the sources appeared to be material hosted in violation of copyright, and there was a distinct whiff of WP:OR about it, and of course the matter of single-purpose anonymous editors. If a user in good standing can state the case in terms that do not violate our policies of WP:V (with WP:RS), WP:NPOV and WP:BLP then there's nothing stopping them. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowded

Hello, Guy/JzG. I know that you gave Irvine22 an indef block for among other things, harassing Snowded over his real life article. There is another user questioning Snowded on his talk page about that article again. I'm hoping it's not due to his disagreements with Snowded over other subjects. I would though be grateful if you could keep an eye on it to ensure that Snowded is not once again harassed in any way. You may not think he is being harassed but an eye on it would be appreciated. The discussion is taking place here. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment?

De quels spams parles-tu? réponds moi --->là<--- Oméga Zell (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes no concern and thank you! I too my English is not terrible of the whole! Oméga Zell (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell Talk page re: BLP

Hi Guy - since you took such an unbiased view of the Jim Bell issue I was wondering if you could comment on my BLP question on the Jim Bell page or point me in the right direction for receiving unbiased advice & feedback. It is really a tricky article for me to be starting my Wikipedia edits with. Thanks! Keystroke (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin Guignard

Hi Guy, Thanks for the help! But, I was told that if someone else was to make a wikipedia page about me it's ok, but it seems that no one else can write it... Can you help me? Thanks! --Justin Guignard (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Block

What exactly has User:Fred the Oyster been blocked for, please? Parrot of Doom 14:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• We have an individual who has complained to OTRS about user conduct around articles discussing him and his work, and after several comments asking him to tone down the rhetoric he made a comment about "American Jewish weasels" on the talk page of the WP:BLP of the complainant. Which was frankly rather stupid and smacked very much of WP:POINT if not outright WP:BATTLE. Since he did not seem to be taking comments on board, I gave him what is basically a shot across the bows. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Obviously I cannot comment on the OTRS complaints, but right now it may appear to some as though Fred is blocked not for his initial comment, but for his subsequent comments to you. I strongly suggest you take a look through Fred's comments on other user talk pages; you'd find that he has a rather oblique sense of humour. If he meant a personal attack, I'm sure that the recipient would have been left in no doubt about it. Fred is a regular contributor to User:Malleus Fatuorum's talk page, who just happens to be rather well known for rescuing and authoring Ferret legging. That, I suspect, may be where the Weasel and Ferret comments have arisen. He has a sharp tongue (like most Northerners) but there's no malice. Parrot of Doom 15:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not the case. He is blocked for his commentary on Black, after he had been asked several times to tone it down. He may assert it was humour, but I don't read it as that, and even if it was intended as humour it was spectacularly ill-judged. His talk page access was revoked because of his comments to me, I did not do that and did not ask for it to be done. The history is pretty clear; I don't think I have any prior interaction with him. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps these requests require a level of clearance I do not possess then, because I've looked and haven't been able to find much. I'm not demanding or expecting anything, I just thought that what I read on Fred's talk page, and the comment regarding the Ferret, did not deserve a block. Fair enough if there's more to it. Parrot of Doom 15:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What requests? WP:OTRS requests? No, you don't have access to those, but the concern was noted quite clearly. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I realise you're under no real obligation to do this, but would you mind pointing out exactly where Fred was warned about his conduct, before his block? Parrot of Doom 13:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shumayel86

I just noticed that he's editing again at the same locations as before. They have blanked one section completely and removed the comments of others on a talk page and replaced them with his own. I guess I'm happy that they at least went to the talk page first to discuss a change. The rest of their edits seem ok. Just wanted to give you a heads up. OlYeller^Talktome 14:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ho hum, another game of whack-a-mole. Honestly? This guy has a highly skewed idea of the importance of his own POV (like, for example, his insistence on the Urdu/Hindi Pathan rather than the much more widely used Pashto Pashtun). Guy (Help!) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Conservapedia

I have an issue regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues. May I contact you privately? Thank you. nobs (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Feel free. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am being pressured to act hastily, the basic outline of problems can be seen here in this exchange between myself and one of several founders of Rationalwiki. User_talk:Nobs01#Stepping_back_from_the_brink. Shortly after I made this request to you, another RW founder, who is cited by name in the Conservapedia article, became actively involved in discussion. nobs (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a sample of what the non-public materials look like.[1] I can't prepare them for wiki format on a user subpage at Rationalwiki as they've blocked my account and Conservapedia has Rationalwiki on its spamblock list. Would it be appropriate to prepare the non-public material on a user subpage in Wikipedia? The materials are quite extensive, do not out real life identities (or if such an occasion arose, I would edit out any such section). The raw data needs some explanation and context given. nobs (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, please loop me in on this, as I am drafting an aribtration request currently. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The link has been nuked. You can email me directly, nobs, or you can email the arbitrators. Non-public information can be submitted by email during arbitrations as well. But fundamentally I reckon nobody's reputation is going to be materially damaged by using one word versus another to describe the obvious raids by RationalWiki on Conservapedia. And indeed Conservapedia actively set themselves up for it by exemplifying MPOV as they do. If someone came to me for a job and said they had been accused of winding Schlafly up I'd count it in their favour. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It will take a few days to review and prepare the most relevent content. The issue ultimately surrounds an active hoax perpetrated by the founders of Rationalwiki against a mainstream journalist who now is being cited as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. As I've said repeatedly, the whole matter can be disposed of by stripping out reference to persons from that reliable source.

I'll take to heart the link you provided. I think in the end everybody can live happily ever after on all three wikis. And I'll continue to try to be a voice of moderation within the CP project and hopefully restore the cordial relationships I once enjoyed with Rationalwiki editors. nobs (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hedley Hazelden

Hi JzG

I added something to this article and noticed you had done some work on it back in 2007. I was wondering what your source was as it would be good to improve the article further. Best wishes and thanks for any help you can give. --John (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

HP house magazine, the HP museum in Woodley, Reading and some material from the HP Association. Dad ran a section in the test house at Radlett during development of the Victor. He and Eric Abbott knew Hazel quite well. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Dad Guy (Help!) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing. Did you ever meet him? I came upon the story in a book by my favorite aviation writer Andrew Brookes and admit I was slightly miffed that there was an article there already when I went to write it. Are any of the HP documents available online? --John (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No I never met him, sadly. The HPA Archive is in a state of uncertainty last I heard from Gerry Cullen; some people wanted it to go to the Herts library service, others to the National Aviation Archive. I will have to ifnd out where it ended up. The Museum of Berkshire Aviation in Reading are very friendly and helpful, though, you can find them at http://home.comcast.net/~aero51/html/index.htm - they have a display on Hazel in their Dart Herald, dad got out of his wheelchair and up the steps into the Herald to look at it (he'd had several strokes by then) Thanks for reminding me of a great day out with the old man :-) Incidentally, is this a good time to mention that I once wire brushed the manifolds of W4050? Guy (Help!) 09:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean this? That is cool, it is a favorite plane of mine, the "Wooden Wonder". I once sat in the cockpit of XM597, but that isn't quite as cool. Next time I am in the UK I plan to try to visit the Berks facility. Cheers, --John (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The very same. I used to volunteer at that museum when I was at school. If you come to UK to visit the Berkshire Aviation Museum, look me up, I live close by. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will if I possibly can. --John (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP Ban

You mentioned blacklisting mrskin.com at the BLP Ban discussion at AN/I. I know I've requested adding stuff to the global blacklist before but I can't remember anymore how I did it. Do you know? If you can refresh my memory I'll put in the request. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I did that locally but yes feel free to request on the global blacklist, it's at m:talk:Spam blacklist. I can't think of a single valid encyclopaedic use for that site. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I will request it. It's basically a porn site, so certainly of little use to us here! <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

BIU MedCab case

Hi JzG, there's a MedCab case that you probably should be aware of concerning Bircham International University. Also there's a new account Raissa Rouse (talk · contribs) that self identifies as acting on behalf of BIU, which has started to edit the article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, perhaps you can provide some insight related to the questions I raised at PhilKnight's talk page regarding the recent history of the BIU article. --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

While you are at it, could you delete some of those S/M adult porn star pages also?

• Few things would give me greater pleasure. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to create a page for "Shelby American Collection", a museum in Colorado, USA. I am new at this but really interested to get everything right. I would like to have a page up that at least says one or two facts about the place and how important they are in regards to the preservation of the vehicle and what they have in their collection, is there any way that you can restore the page so I can take everything out but some basic facts. I will not persist without your approval, but so far I have not backed up anything and all the info seems to be lost. Gabe Lee (talk) 16:09:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

David Bell

I've started this stub, because I think he is notable. Perhaps you could cast your BLP eye over it and check for any obvious errors or areas for improvement (ie without adding significant new material at this stage). I'm going to see if I can confirm and find cites for his school and LBS, which I got from the articles on those subjects. If not I'll ask for references in those articles and take them out of the biography (I'll know today). I didn't find David a complaining type, but he's a stickler for accuracy and it's always worth a review by a second pair of eyes! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• It could use the Order of knighthood and a cite to the London Gazette citation, we can have a look for some other profiles around the place. A tad dry, but I like dry in a biography :-) Guy (Help!) 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added a mention of his family to make it a little less dry ;-) Each wikilink has a whole article about it. There are so many references I can't even find one yet giving more detail about his knighthood. PS Worth was valid, but LSE was a namesake. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If you get a chance, I wonder if you could check why the cite for Common Purpose from their website was blacklisted. I've put the address in the talk page. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• [2], I can whitelist a single homepage url if you like. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• They don't seem to be innately evil - just a tad too empowering for WP perhaps at some point in the past. If you can whitelist a single page, I think David Bell's biography is not likely to be subject of spam, seeing as he didn't even have an article until yesterday. The URL is www.commonpurpose.org.uk/about/governance/david-bell. It has some useful information about his retiring from the FT, which I didn't spot anywhere else. Either that, or take a risk and give them another chance in case the IP has moved on, I don't feel strongly about that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Added to whitelist. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I can see now that Common Purpose is part of the global conspiracy, with the Prince of Darkness exposed at its pinnacle, so that probably explains the blacklist. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hey Guy. While patrolling new pages and pages up for speedy deletion, I ran across an article for Madison Eagles. An IP user had removed the db-g4 tag once without explaining so I replaced it. Another IP removed it with an explanation so I left it off. Another user, Justa Punk then replaced the db-g4 tag stating that " you can not remove this tag. You must follow the instructions for contesting it." I removed the db tag as the state is not true. I removed it again stating that his comment wasn't true and that I also declined the speedy as a recent championship title had been won. Justa reapplied the db tag stating that the IP was a sock of the article's creator. I removed the db tag yet again stating that I declined the speedy and that his accusation was irrelevant. All info above can be verified here. I then took it to the talk page stating that the new championship title was at least a claim of notability and that another AfD would be needed. The IP began commenting and Justa immediately began implying that the IP was a sock of the author and somehow related to the subject of the article. He then claimed to have initiated a checkuser. I was interested in following the investigation so I checked his contribution history and found to proof of an investigation being instigated. I then asked him where the investigation was and accused him of misleading the IP. He became defensive and refused to share where the investigation was taking place. That info can be checked here.

I then took it to the user's talk page. I accused him of bullying and misleading the IP which I admit was brash. I decided to take a break from the situation at the behest of another user until recently when I saw that Justa and the IP were edit warring over the reliability of a blog. The IP and I both agree that it's at least reliable enough to be used as a reference for the small bit of information it cites (it's a blog owned by Sun-Times Media Group).

Today, a new IP user shows up on the page and makes this edit on the article (agreeing with Justa) and this edit on the talk page (agreeing with Justa) while again removing the blog as a reference. If you look at the edit history of the IP, you can see that it was used to archive part of Punk's talk page. That alone doesn't mean it's Justa but if you look at Justa's talk page history, you can see where he says that he forgot to log in while archiving. I feel that Justa has been bullying and lying to a new user to get what he wants. Past that, I think it's obvious that he is socking (although I don't think this is normal for him). I think he needs to understand that his actions are harmful to the project.

Do you think I should initiate a sockpuppet investigation or just back off? The article is going to be deleted in an AfD so maybe it's better off left alone. I'm interested to see what an outside view has to say. Sorry for the long post and thanks for your time. OlYeller^Talktome 04:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been patrolling newpages for a little over a month now and what you're describing is pretty much run of the mill for newpages. A throwaway account will create an article, then when it's tagged for speedy, they will log out and remove it as an IP or else get their friend to remove it as an IP. This happens constantly. Although I think you were correct in declining the speedy if the article made a legitimate claim of notability. I personally don't see any particular reason to initiate a sockpuppet investigation. It looks pretty obvious to me, but then, I've been seeing it for a bit, too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mainly right but the obvious fact is that Justa needs to either check his settings and ensure he's always logged in (AGF) or stop logging out to pretend additional support for his own position (cynical). A warning to that effect is not a problem. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

He reverted the edit today. Apparently it was his nephew who made the edit (see here). I'm going to let it go. After sleeping on it, I'd rather edit other articles than deal with it. OlYeller^Talktome 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BROTHER, sure it was ;-) Guy (Help!) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! That applies to sisters too. My older daughter blames my younger daughter, usually pre-emptively. Even if she's not sure any crime has actually been committed, the little one definitely did it! It's a step up from the "oops" preceding tipping the drink on the floor (when she hadn't quite worked out the importance of timing). Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice

This is to inform you of a matter in which you may have some slight interest: you may find it here. –Turian (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards to user TallMagic

Greetings! I'm writing this because of a ban placed on TallMagic for multiple user abuse. I've felt like a dog with a bone the past day or so reading up on this and I'd like, if at all possible, for you to review the case. Cla68 had apparently disagreed with the editing patterns of TallMagic, and sought remedy through an SPI which you seem to have deleted the page of in the name of privacy concerns, if I understand things correctly. He also sought remedy on the BLP noticeboard, where it was stated that there was a related finding from a past arbitration committee ruling.

After that, Cla68, admin Atama, and Tallmagic may have been looking for some sort of resolution on Atama's talk page. If I understand correctly, while TallMagic was concerned with harassment, Atama said the first step would be abandoning one of the accounts so TallMagic could no longer edit either outside of one article, or no longer edit that one article (I have reason to strongly believe that Atama wasn't aware this would be a consequence). What has me mulling this over is that every time I read further, I can sense nothing at all that might lead me to believe there is some injurious intent by either TallMagic or Atawa (I didn't read into Cla68's edits in this regard, only because the charge of harassment is not what I'm contacting you about). That said, TallMagic, who seems to have shown up clean in multiple investigations, was finally banned by Atama. Atawa then informed Cla68, on his talk page, that he did so in what seems to be a simple notification of action taken.

Since the results of this were essentially that TallMagic was outed enough that he couldn't use the account anyway, I find myself asking if I'm engaging in an endeavor without purpose. Nevertheless, as I mentioned in the talk page, that block might unintentionally damage his interest in returning to active wikipedia editing, should he decide to. More than that, I also find myself truly confused as to the situation at large. What seems to be the most reasonable interpretation is that Atawa feels sock puppets are never acceptable, and if that's so, I am not sure I agree.

If you could review a small portion of this, I tried to give summation on TallMagic's page while advocating for him in the Retirement header.[3] It should be said that I've not mentioned this comment to any other involved parties. I'd just like another set of eyes on it, as Atawa has stated that he's done with the whole affair. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Flightpath Charter Airways

• Flightpath Charter Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You deleted my page again. What can I do to prevent that from happening again? I do not understand why mine is being deleted when there are so many others similar to mine. ?? Can you please explain what is going on? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.96.26 (talk • contribs)

Your article has been deleted because it is advertorial and because the subject is eligible for deletion as making no claim to notability. There is also an obvious conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Can you please explain why my page was deleted again and why it is now locked from being created again. There are many pages similar and less significant than mine, and I really do not understand what is going on. thank you (Eva Piesiak (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)) You deleted my page. Apparently I am to contact you that I am going to make another page. I don't understand who you are or what is going on, but I am following the rules so I can stop wasting my time! Can you help me?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Piesiak (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See the above reply to the comment you left when logged out. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack's site

You earlier participated in this discussion, is there any chance you could return and give your view on the site's reliability now that BlackJack has given his lengthy evidence. Thank you. --88.111.52.213 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Busty Heart

On reading your notice about an OTRS ticket involving this biographical subject, I took the liberty of replacing the blocking admin's good faith attempts to communicate with her with a single standard welcome message. I've informed the blocking admin and explained why, in a manner I hope he will find acceptable as a way of moving forward. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, good call. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Sure, it's original research. That's why I added sources to the material at the time I added the section back into the article. My original argument had to do with the material itself, not the references previously in place. I even mentioned the section could use better sources, which I provided shortly thereafter. --Xaliqen (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but you left some "another video is (source: link to video)" crap. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, when I re-added the material, I re-added everything that was there previously. That's true. I was mainly concentrating on finding sources rather than cleaning everything up at the moment. Sorry for any confusion. --Xaliqen (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Fighting Pornography

I saw your note at AN/I. I had a look at this article and I'm wondering if the group truly satisfies WP:N. It looks like the vast majority of the citations are primary sources (from their own "backlash" publication), and a cursory glance seems to indicate most of those that come from reliable sources are letters to the editor written by members of the group (letters to the editor, obituaries, etc. can't be used to satisfy notability). What do you think? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly, I have no idea. You may well be right, but the arrests might well have gained sufficient notice. I think it's quite likely that the article is largely written by people connected with them. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I decided to send it to AfD. There are a lot of references listed there but I don't think any of them actually are about this group, or provide more than a trivial passing mention. There certainly seems to be a lack of "substantial coverage", apart from their own primary sources and a personal website. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Don Murphy ANI

[4] I think that was an error. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• You are right, thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Johannes Maas

You have deleted a new article on which I was working and adding notability. Please put a copy of the deleted article on my talk page. รัก-ไทย (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Might take me a while, but you do know this has been deleted more than once before, don't you? Guy (Help!) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you please take a look at all the moving about and consider protecting this page? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a frriendly reminder of my request for the Johannes Maas page which I created, and which you deleted before new references on notability could be added. Further, regarding the protection request here, this editor, to my knowledge, is not one of the contributors to this article. My interest in the page was merely an attempt to clarify the name, as both men who have this name are relatives, and in my opinion, both are notable. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Too much drama. I can email it as long as you promise not to bring it back here. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, email it to me. รัก-ไทย (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth RfM

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis creation myth

You seem to know what on earth is going on there. What's the status on things? Are we proceeding with the current list of parties, or is it to be trimmed? AGK 22:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have no idea, to be honest. I had forgotten it even existed - I am not one of those who considers the name of this article to be the single most important issue on Wikipedia ;-) Guy (Help!) 08:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the reply. I think we can get somewhere with this issue if the mediator is patient enough (I probably wouldn't be). But frankly I'm instinctively reaching for a cluebat, not my mediator's hat. I'll ask anyhow: would it be worth proceeding with mediation of this dispute? AGK 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Guy. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Craven

I was surprised that the Robert Craven biog was removed.

I had commented to yourselves that someone had written the libelous words "Robert Craven has been known to promote the work of Tim Cumming's organisation Wowi Digital, an orgnisation that has been known to deliver little to no value for money to their customers." - On looking at my wiki I removed these words as they weren't relevant or factually accurate. Should have left them?

The wiki entry is not intended as Unambiguous advertising or promotion but for informational purposes. The wiki seemed balanced and informational although I did not write it. I have edited it to make it tighter and refer to more references.

I don't think it is really for me to argue my case but the biog is presumably valid because of my reputation as a best-selling author/blogger/speaker.

I use my website as a promotional piece for my activities.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Robert Craven rc@diretorscentre.com — [Unsigned comment added by 80.176.139.67 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC).]

• It's unlikely that you will be the best judge of what reads as promotional, I did consult with other admins on this and the opinion was pretty much unanimous: a promotional article apparently written in large part by someone engaged in promoting you, plus some edits from you, with no significant input from anybody independent. The language was very much "advertorial". Guy (Help!) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay Lyon (musician)

This article has been recreated, presumably by the subject who has now created an account. The current version is far worse than the previous article which you deleted as A7. Can you please take a look at this and deal with it as you see fit? Thanks. Brad 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is incredible..why my page has been deleted? Brad how about you do some real research on me since you seem to be so adamant in telling my true story? Rather than finding gossip and attaching to a factual wikipedia sight. Only in your eyes its far worse but to me its the truth. I am following every rule from wiki and as far as im concerned you are doing the opposite.. You seem to be so persistent in finding the facts on me then go out and do some real homework before you complain and delete my page?? please advise?

• Please see WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 05:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and?? The things written are factual and neutral? im not accrediting any thing other than the truth? Im well inside the rights and rules of wikipedia!

You'll find that JzG knows quite a lot more about the rules than you do. You may enjoy spending a year or two editing other articles so you can see how things work here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll also find that people are often not the greatest judges of what is factual and neutral when it was written by them or on their behalf. Guy (Help!) 06:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Socks

I see that you have blocked Excessively Brief, whilst stating that you "don't care who's sock it is." The fact is, that Excessively Brief's user page now states that the account is a suspected sock of mine. Please realise that I do care. Whilst I have been strongly opinionated; perhaps to the point of being inappropriate on occasion, I have never vandalised, socked, or done anything to hurt this encyclopedia. It was, in fact, I that called for this investigation in the first place. Whilst you may not care, and have just decided to block the sock account, and move on, it is important to me that this is still investigated fully.Mk5384 (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully a checkuser will accept the SPI that has been filed and this can be sorted out once and for all. –xeno^talk 12:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be hard to believe if it wasn't accepted. The accused is the one most loudly calling for an investigation.Mk5384 (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I think it's a meatpuppet not a sockpuppet, which means no other account will be identified. You have, however, brought this on yourself by your strange fixation with putting the word "nigger" into an infobox, against sustained and thoughtful opposition. More fool you. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And there is "sustained and thoughtful" support, as well. My "strange fixation with putting the word 'nigger' into an info box" is purposely misleading. I didn't put it there. It is the censors who wanted it removed. Secondly, I'm not calling for the word "nigger' to be included in the info box for Santa Claus. I'm calling for it to be included in the info box for Nigger Jack.Mk5384 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, it looks very much to me as if you are actually calling to be blocked for disruption. It is long past time to drop the stick. Long past. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand the fact that you are qutie sick of all this. I don't blame you. But the truth is, I'm not holding the stick. Any time that I respond to what has been written it's a stick issue? I don't get it. You were the one who blocked me before. If you want to do it again, obviously I can't stop you. But do you honestly think that I'm calling to be blocked for rebutting what you said?Mk5384 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple. For the last several weeks you have been on and off the noticeboards more or less constantly due to your tenacious fight to include one word in the infobox of an article, against all comers, against many thoughtful arguments, against many explanations of policy, and have continued this against the advice of numerous uninvolved parties. Yes, you are the one holding the stick. The horse died some weeks ago and the time is long past to drop it. Long past. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, since you knew me as Husnock, I dont think its really appropriate that MK is now trying to bring activities of Husnock into the current SPI as he did here [5]. That stuff happened almost five years ago and was handled and cleared up over outside e-mail at the highest levels of Wikipedia. I was wondering when and if MK would throw Husnock into the fray, which is what he now apparently doing. I think those comments should be removed from the current SPI. -OberRanks (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

He can dish it out, but he just can't take it.Mk5384 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black

This Edwin Black. I did not completely understand a note you left on Edwin Black and to whom it was directed. It was regarding some articles. If you wish to help me understand, contact me at inquiry@edwinblack.com. I can answer any question you may have. If you wish to call me, that can be arranged and your number will not show.Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessively Brief

Given tjat this was not a sock puppet account of the person accused would it not be a good idea to find out whoes it was (or unblock it as no one is now been foound of having created it)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. WP:SPA, WP:SOCK or meatpuppet. A waste of effort. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

d acharya

There is close to a clear consensus to exclude that name, there is at least no consensus to include. I would take it back out myself but perhaps its better to wait for a couple more comments Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)