User talk:JzG/Archive 23

Hey, could you take a loot at Jeffrey and my current dispute at Talk:Cherokee#Narrow Scope.3F. I'm not sure if mediation there has ended, it seems most of the mediators haven't commented for a while. Anyway, right now things are getting a bit over-heated, and I'd like it if a cooler head could give an opinion. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute I am aware of here. Mediation has ended and everyone needs to comply with the solution -- this editor is continuing to push for inclusion of unverified groups as Cherokee is spite of the successful conclusion of mediation. This is now extending to attempting to hijack the name "Cherokee" to obviously continue this drivel that non-Indians can claim to be indians on Wikipedia without verifiable proof. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Smmurphy, it looks to me very much as if the mediation has come to a conclusion but that you are unwilling to accept it. I suggest you leave it until Phaedriel returns. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I don't want to argue too much, but I'm not sure Jeffrey and I are interpreting the result of the mediation the same. I didn't see Phadriel's proposal as being as broad as to cover the issue of the scope of the article itself, just how the article deals with the two "categories," and I was trying to deal with the scope. Thanks for your suggestion, I'll definitely follow it. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please could you give me a bit more background to your edit to this article; the edit comments are a bit cryptic. Many thanks. SP-KP 10:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We received an email from the wildlife protection unit of Yorkshire Police requesting us not to make it quite so easy for collectors to find this incredibly rare species. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; I'd like to discuss this further, as the information given in the article is basically in the public domain, for example in published sources (which can be added to the article as references). Where would be the best place for that discussion? SP-KP 12:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a reply for SP-KP User talk:SP-KP#Explanation on his talk page, as it seems that both you and I responded to this issue - you may have dealt with a request from the police, but I dealt with one from Kew Gardens. I suggest you reply to him on Talk:Grass Wood, Wharfedale as well, so as to not scatter discussion overmuch. DS 15:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some concern about actions by administrator User:Omegatron. Given this and this, I'm a little worried by these actions [1] and especially [2] (salted page), which was followed by this slightly surreal exchange. Also, looking at this diff, I'm starting to lose some of my AGF. I considered taking this to WP:ANI, but thought it best to alert previously involved admins first. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks, EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you mentioned that last diff (about the lack of research and accusations against me) as affecting your opinion of my good faith. Can you explain? — Omegatron 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's talk it out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Omegatron. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please consider fully protecting his page? He is continuing with personal attacks (see the one I removed) and libel (calling me a stalker and shit). He is not going to contribute positively there in any way. If he sees a problem with his article, can he just email you or something? Saturday ^Contribs 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this go away or die shit is too fucking much. I can deal with him calling me a stalker, but the die thing was too far. Please protect the page fully. Saturday ^Contribs 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him, and don't go anywhere near his article. There will be no problem as long as you do this. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been ignoring, do you think I would look at this guys webpage other than for transformers news and to see if I should worry that someone is tracking my fucking movements? I don't think you understand what kind of impact this shit has had on my life. I have to worry that some obsessive fan of Murphy's will come and interact with me in real life. And by interact, I mean beat me up, as one had offered to do with BigDT (perhaps in a joking manner, I still can't risk it, screenshot available on request).

Calling my interaction with him unhelpful was as good as slapping me in the face. I was the one that did nothing wrong other than remove spam and insert the thing about the Tarantino fight that community consensus has removed. But I haven't added it back on after community consensus. Oh, and I also went around removing libel and other shit about me What has he done? He has called me a stalker, a retard, a punk, and, among other things, he sought to buy admin privileges... barely anything that has positively contributed to this encyclopedia. I will leave him alone, once he stops putting libel and personal information up about me. And the "Or die" thing is still not cool with me. Did you notice that I stayed out of doing anything with his article, other than removing vandalism and the link to his webpage (which contained attacks on Wikipedia), after consensus established that one of the things he is more well known for was to be removed? I also stayed out of doing anything until he started attacking me and nobody questioned the factual basis of his attacks. Saturday ^Contribs 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is some very important aspect of this that I'm not seeing, but on the face of it, it looks like we are blaming the victim.

"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them."[3]. If there have been genuine BLP problems, then Saturday should stay far away from the article, but that has no relevance to the current situation, as BLP is not rightly enforced (much less retroactively) through harassment and personal attacks.Proabivouac 01:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to that, community consensus (which I don't agree with) has established that the Tarantino section was to be removed. After that community consensus I did not return that section, and I have stayed away from the article due to a conflict of interests. Proabivouac and JzG, I'll send both of you an email that basically describes everything that happened from my POV, just so you will all have more info. Saturday ^Contribs 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify: Don Murphy asserts that Saturday is a teenager who is stalking him, or at least pursuing him in certain net spaces. The best thing is for Saturday to stay well away from Don Murphy and related articles, and User:ColScott. His mere presence inflames the situation. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I assert that I am not stocking him, and that he is being his usual arrogant self. He will continue to say I am stalking him because it gives him an excuse to slam me at every opportunity, even though I am not. When will people realise that this man is a fucking jerk who will say shit about anyone, that he is just lying and trying to make me look bad. Saturday ^Contribs 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't stay away from removing shit that calls me a stalker and a retard, though you have noticed that I did stay away from his article completely due to a conflict of interests. Sorry if my tone is a bit sharp, but this blaming the victim, as Proabivouc so aptly put it, is getting on my nerves. Saturday ^Contribs 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday, I don't doubt the truth value of your comments, but when you attack back, it makes you look equally culpable, even if you're not.

JzG, Wikipedia shouldn't have pages dedicated to attacking private citizens by name, but that is exactly what User talk:ColScott continues to be. The appearance of a (presumably) grown man throwing his weight about to persecute a minor is unseemly, and quite possibly illegal in Florida. Please take decisive action to close this thread (w/appropriate oversight) and prevent its reoccurance.Proabivouac 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG et al, with all due respect, this entire situation is over the top. This thread and the one on ColScott's page ought to be closed/archived/removed and the situation allowed to diffuse. --BigDT 20:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add oversighted to that list.Proabivouac 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User. You recently deleted my page. I am an inventor and have invented the product called Tavacom 500. This device is a nurse call device used by thousands of patients and residents in facilities across North America. I would like my invention to be posted. This is not for commercial purposes as the product was discontinued last year and is no longer available in its original form. However, it revolutionized nurse call technology. Thank you.

A very quiet revolution it has been. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS!^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced to semi-protection. If problems occur (especially legal threats) we can return it to full. I see where you have been keeping the article updated per consensus so you are more familiar than I about ongoing issues. If you think this is unwise feel free to increase. Take care, FloNight 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guess who's back? --Calton | Talk 14:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RBId. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, Just wanted to drop a note of encouragement. Thanks for working hard to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Your words to me have been tough to hear, but I think I now have a better idea of how to contribute more to the project. I figure I can at least start by increasing the amount of articles I edit, instead of just focusing on Harvest. I was keeping track of a lot of your activities during the Afd process. For what it's worth, here you go:

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Keep up the good work! Jamie L.talk 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4] --Kbdank71 17:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

U.S. Congressional Reports show how PRT was used to stop rail transit planing in Minneapolis and Denver in the 1970's[5][6]

ATRA Chairman Jeral Poskey makes an admission [7]... enjoy...Avidor 14:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a question regarding your recent deletion (2 June 2007) of the article BYU 100 Hour Board. The reason given in the logs was "Absolutely no assertion of notability." In the protected titles for June 2007, you commented: "Massive article on a student noticeboard at Brigham Young University. Yes, really, a noticeboard. As in a bit of cork nailed to the wall."

Perhaps I can help explain why the 100 Hour Board should be considered worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

To clear up a possible misunderstanding, the 100 Hour Board is not a noticeboard. Think of it instead as something along the lines of Google Answers, except free.

We have a registered readership of 2,000 and get 1,250 unique visits per day. Although our primary reader base is composed of BYU students, we also have questioners from a wide variety of backgrounds with little or no connection to BYU. We provide a public service, and do our best to answer anyone's questions. During the school year we answer an average of 30-50 questions a day, with a slight decrease during the summer. We also currently have over 37,000 questions and answers in our archives.

Perhaps you could help me include this (or any other necessary information) so that the page can be restored. I appreciate any thoughts from you about what else would be necessary to restore the page.

Respectfully yours,

Peppergrower 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of BYU_100_Hour_Board. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Peter 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post the last request for undeletion regarding myg0t? I'm not sure what I've read was the latest one or not. --Android Mouse 06:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be some issues with the DRV close. You may want to comment. JoshuaZ 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you wrote in the CharlotteWebb evidence page:

"At the very least it should have been made possible for CW to privately request and be uncontroversially granted unblocking of any IPs which are not TOR exit nodes."

That suggests that it wasn't made possible.

Raul654 made an offer. Perhaps you missed it? See here. ElinorD (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I never expected to get a laugh out of reading the ArbCom page, but this cracked me up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JzG, I came across you during a research quest, and your opinion on POV caught my attention. Plain English, I add a lot of material. All referenced, sourced, cited? You may not agree with it, but hey that’s Wiki. I have an editor who continues to throw in useless comments, removes referenced material, replaces it with comment, and is just a plain nuisance? They have been warned, blocked, and challenged! I have been tolerant . Is there a description or policy for this type of behaviour. From my research (reading there contributions and talk page) I am not the only one. How would you deal with it? Hoping for the best, Regards --Domer48 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Today was an interesting day for me, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As well as exchanging emails with people spanning pretty much the entire gamut from banned trolls to Jimbo, I had a talk with Danny and another with Jeff Merkey. And you know something? Despite deep-seated differences about many things of pressing importance to the project and its future, the one thing that was never in doubt was that all of us - Jimbo, Danny, Jeff, various admins and several long-standing editors and former admins - want the same thing.

We want to build a credible online encyclopaedia.

We may disagree about how best to do that, what precisely constitutes credible, what should be done to attract the right kinds of people, how ready we should be to kick out the wrong kinds of people, but in the end there is no doubt that success is going to look pretty much the same to all of us, at least from the outside. It's going to look a lot like Wikipedia does right now, almost certainly with some form of stable versions (which will be a massive boon in fighting vandalism, perhaps allowing me to get back to writing articles more - this may not be altogether a good thing). It's going to have a many fewer "biographies" of kids who once did something stupid or maybe whose friends did something stupid, many fewer news stories of no lasting historical or societal consequences, a tighter focus on sourcing and good writing.

Hell, even Larry Sanger wants the same thing. Everybody who has been involved with Wikipedia in more than a trivial capacity seems to be fundamentally in agreement on the core objective. We have built an online encyclopaedia, we proved that could be done. Step 2 is to make it more credible. Right now it is a curate's egg - parts of it are excellent.

I suspect we all share much the same general view of the enemies of this aim. Trolls. Vandals. Abusers of the project. You can abuse the project in many ways: self-promotion, pursuing your external political or personal agenda, violating the privacy of others, harassment, perpetuating the harassment of others. There are some things it is safe to leave to other sites.

If your aim is the same as mine, then we probably are not going to have a problem getting along. And if we do, it's because we haven't had a talk a bout it. You can send me email. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have put a tag on this article so that it cannot be created. I dont mind but i think that you should not have put siliness as the reason because it is a true article and i just could not get enough information. I am a member of the Lari family as it says in the article

Hi, I have all of the copyrights to the pictures that I am putting on Wikipedia. I have never put up a page before and I do not think I am citing them correctly. As a result, I have been accused of blatant copyright infringement, which isn't true. I saw that you were the person that last took down the page I created, and then blocked me from trying to edit it and fix the problem. I'm really sorry that I didn't put the page up correctly, but if you could help me I would really appreciate it!!! Thanks.

Hello, I read the message (Please stop now) you left for me in my User Talk page. Thanks you for communicating with me. However, I must inform you that it is not my intention to vandalise or misuse Wikipedia. I made alteration on the Improvised explosive device and I left a message on the Discussion board. I also communicated with Parsecboy. This user simply did not reply and reverted to the previous version. I do not understand why you are asking me to stop. I will now revert back the the changes I made as it it my right as a Wikipedia user. I am open and welcome to any future discussion. Thank you -- [[User::SeiteNichtGefunden|SeiteNichtGefunden]]

You had entered the below comment in the discussion of the deletion review of the above referenced article. I posted a response there but would like the opportunity to discuss your thoughts in greater detail and so have included both your comment and my response below. The deletion review does not seem to be the appropriate venue for ad detailed conversation but I'm hopeful that you'll be comfortable with having that conversation here instead.

---

• Here we go again. This is another article that pretends to be a biography but isn't. If the law gets passed, it will make a fine start for an article on the law, but the case itself is a news story not an encyclopaedic biography of a person. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually there is not one, but two laws that are associated with the subject of this article and both have already passed the Texas Senate and House. One has been signed by Governor Perry and the other becomes law on Sept 1st by default. The relevant content is up above but I'll reproduce it here with emphasis added to the pertinent sections:

• On February 5, 2007, the Texas Legislature's State Representative Dawnna Dukes entered a bill to require school districts in Texas to create policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. This bill was created in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente[13] and Ortralla Mosley.[14] Jennifer Ann's Group provided testimony on February 8, 2007 to the legislature in support of this bill. Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 18, 2007 and it immediately went into effect. (emphasis added) [15]

• On February 15, 2007, on the the one-year anniversary of Jennifer's murder, Senator Eliot Shapleigh entered a bill to grant posthumous diplomas to students that have been murdered during their Senior year of high school. The bill is named "Jennifer's Law".[16] On May 28, 2007 the bill was signed in the Senate and passed to the Governor Rick Perry for signing. It will go into effect upon being signed or September 1, 2007, whichever occurs first. (emphasis added) [17]

As to your comment about "Here we go again." it's difficult for me to respond without more specifics. My understanding is that this is a forum to discuss not the merits of the article but instead the unilateral "speedy delete" by User Talk:TexasAndroid. Drew30319 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drew30319 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It means the subject is the law, not the individual. It should be merged and redirected to the law. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There currently is no article about either of the two laws. However the subject meets the guideline criteria in WP:BIO. Do you feel that more information needs to be added to create more of a "biography?" Drew30319 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've yet to receive a response to my question above. Do you feel that more information needs to be added to create more of a "biography?" Or do you agree with me that the article meets WP:BIO? I'm hoping to have a constructive conversation with you about this but it's difficult if you don't respond. Drew30319 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on Wikibreak in a few minutes; could you also make changes #1 and #4 from my {{editprotected}} request on Stephen Barrett per agreement of the inserting editor? You made #2, per BLP, although it was disputed, and #3 is a subtle change of wording which I think made the sentence incorrect, but probably not necessary under the editprotected guidelines. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you explain why you deleted the redirects from Aquygen and Denny Klein (but not HHO Gas or Brown's Gas, for instance)? As I I said on AN, these and other synonyms should probably be protected redirects, and the article histories should be kept for attribution reasons. If they aren't made into redirects for some reason, they should, at the very least, be salted as per their AfDs. — Omegatron 03:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a privacy violation? It is rather obvious that the only person who could have known and blocked all of CharlotteWebb's IPs was a checkuser. Corroborating that with Raul's statement and the logs of all checkusers, it is easy to see that [that certain person] is the only person who could have blocked all 400+ of CharlotteWebb's IPs. --Iamunknown 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Revealing the identity of the blocking checkuser allows privacy to be compromised. Which is, I'm guessing, why CW never did so. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at a loss as to how it allows privacy to be compromised, but I guess I'm glad I didn't post my evidence, seeing as it was going to be a detailed analysis of that checkuser's block log, and by posting it I would have been allowed privacy to be compromised. --Iamunknown 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct. But do feel free to email it to the arbitrators directly. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows by now who blocked CW's IPs, so why not just tell it? If someone wants to know CW's IP addresses, they will just look into *CENSORED*'s block log at the appropriate date and find it. SalaSkan 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, in retrospect, I endorse JzG's actions. I was thinking earlier when I wanted to present evidence that might not be good to do so on-wiki. At any rate, I think it is best if this is dropped and/or this thread removed. --Iamunknown 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this matter, but this edit looked suspicious. Hope I got it right. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, would you please comment here? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas for what to do about this page: User:UKPhoenix79/Bose product sightings? The last MfD closed with no consensus. It seems pretty straightforward to me but I still didn't want to renominate it right away. —ptk✰fgs 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that it's usual to delete incoming links, especially redirects, to articles that you delete (such as Margita Bangová). violet/riga (t) 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Takes a while, though, and interferes with my singing practice. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine the two - sing the article names. Use the keys A, F, and D. violet/riga (t) 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh! Singing Vaccai at the moment. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this information is all on the Tameside Council website. Have only included the NPOV bits. Have referenced it.Torch1234 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the information I added is controversial. Rather than keep deleting most of the article and turning it back into a stub when people add things, wouldn't it be better to allow the article to develop naturally. The idea being that a balance will come about and be maintained without special help or intervention. There wouldn't be much left on wikipedia if we were all so quick to delete articles that don't yet meet the desired standard on sources. Torch1234 21:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Because what you are adding is a flagrant violation of WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how it is biased please?Torch1234 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It reads as a laundry list of grudges from political opponents. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does this more resemble a WP:COATRACK than it does a biography? And yes, it survived an AFD in November. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy I don't understand what you are doing to me. I am adding links to free recordings of performances of music referred to in Wikipedia (which you said on 29th June 2007 in the personal profile of my wiki persona dwsolo would be "most welcome") and yet you are deleting them! Please explain. Please look at my site (well one of them) at www.dwschorale.com and explain why you have objections to them being linked to from wikipedia - in particular in view of the fact that many people have downloaded the free mp3s of performances over the past few months directly from the wikipeda pages, which shows that there is genuine interest

You can reply to me direct at solomons8 [at] yahoodotcodotuk Thanks David

• You are adding links to your own website. If you want to upload free content, please do, but only if you have the full rights to the performance (including any accompaniment). Guy (Help!) 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding links to my own website - well obviously, I don't have rights to music on other people's sites! - those on my site are the recordings to which I DO HAVE full rights, in that I sang them (all the voice parts) I created the accompaniment (where there is any) and the music is either in the public domain or my own compositions or arrangements or compositions by friends who have given me permission to perform and record them. Furthermore you have deleted my name from the Delian Society page. WHY????? I am a member of the Delian Society. Thirdly was it you who removed Jean Chatillon's Wikipedia article about me? If so, I am getting the impression that you have something personal against me. David

• Do not add links to our own website. It is considered spamming. I have nothign against you, I do have something against people adding links to their own websites. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You allow links to external websites, whether professional or not. Where do you draw the line? Is is necessary for someone else to add links to my performances? Or would you delete those as well. And if so why, since they would then be added by some who doesn't own the website in question? Also who keeps deleting my name from the Delian Society page??? There's no link to an external website of mine there.

You add your website, we call it WP:SPAM.

You add your name, we call it WP:VAIN

You appear to be attempting to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Please don't. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using it for self promotion I am offering a free service to those who are interested in hearing the music by the composers in question. So again I ask: where do you draw the line? This must lie at the centre of your policy surely: you must decide at some point that an external link is allowed, so what is that point? If you don't have an allowability point then surely - logically - you must exclude ALL external links. Is that point that some stranger adds a link? If so, how do you know that it is a stranger adding it and that it is allowable? As to the reference to VAIN - that is also incorrect. VAIN would be where someobody adds their name where it does not belong. It is no more vain to add my name than to add the names of other members of the Delian Society, since all are members.

Hi Guy I have finally worked out how to make an ogg file, which wiki allows. The path is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Tallis_if_ye_love_me_performed_by_the_dwsChorale.ogg Is that acceptable? Attached to the Tallis page now, I trust it's ok?

I already made some grammatical changes.[8] Nothing controversial, so nobody panic, OK?

On 12 June 2007, you removed a section of content from Jeff Merkey's bio, with the note "That is a terrible source, polemical and not in the least bit scholarly. We have a better source already for the same information."[9] I have come to agree with you on this point: because scofacts.org is very biased (probably since the operator of the site was one of the people sued by Merkey), links to pages at scofacts.org should not be in the article, on grounds of NPOV.

However, you did not replace the information you deleted with the "better source" to which you referred, nor name that better source, so I don't quite understand your edit summary. Can you please explain?

The Groklaw reader in me wants to see the actual court document, and it is very useful in understanding the claim. The article as it stands today says "various charges concerning harassment," but harassment is actually the least of the charges made - treason, support of terrorism and solicitation of murder among them. Without more explanation, it is difficult to get a better understanding of the basis of the suit. And explanation without a source is impermissible, so what better source that the very document that Merkey himself wrote?

I would like to re-add a link to the actual court document. It is available on a few websites, almost all of them biased against Merkey, some much worse than others. Perhaps a statement in the footnote explaining that the hosting site is biased would balance that a bit more? I also noticed that ip-wars.net is already used as a source, and the court document is also hosted there, so does that count as a "better source" to re-add a direct link to the court document?

The other source removed was lwn.net, where the original comment was made that formed part of the basis of the lawsuit. lwn.net directly commented on this claim. Do you consider this site as polemical and un-scholarly as scofacts.org? The court document presents one side of the story regarding Bruce Perens' comment; lwn.net presents the other, and not with the kind of vitriol and mocking that you find on scofacts.org. So this would seem like an acceptable source, at least to me.

Also, the final resolution of Merkey's re-opening of the case against Al Petrofsky is available, though I believe only from Petrofsky's site. Stating that the "case [was] re-opened" without explaining whether it's still open or what the resolution was kind of leaves the reader hanging. I think it would be informative to state (with cite, naturally) the final resolution of the case.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts and comments on each of these points. Thanks. Pfagerburg 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very wary of using court documents as sources, especially filings (which have often not been weighed by the courts, the cases are frequently settled out of court). Much better to stick to what reliable independent sources say. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a court document can be a good source, depending on how it's used. Consider, for example, a situation where Alice sues Bob, claiming that Bob did X (whatever X might be). An article about Bob shouldmust not include this information, for the very reason you cited: it hasn't been weighed by the court. However, it seems that an article about Alice could say "Alice has, in a court filing, accused Bob of doing X" and then point to the court document which Alice filed. The court document is not only the best source of the accusation, it is the accusation.

There are two references to court documents, and I'd like to break them out separately.

• The initial filing in Merkey v. Perens, et al. made an accusation. The accuser's bio could state that accusation, with the accuser's own words as the source. The accusation itself is not being presented as true; what's being presented as fact is that a specific accusation was made.

• The final resolution of the portion of Merkey v. Perens, et al. that was re-opened against Al Petrofsky: this is another court document, a signed order from the judge. Therefore, it has been weighed by the court. However, this document appears to be available only from Petrofsky's website, and so raises the question of linking to it. Do you feel that a statement of the resolution in the main article, a link to the PDF directly on Petrofsky's site, and a disclaimer of some sort noting that the site is hosted by one of the defendants and must therefore be considered biased would be sufficient? Or is the resolution of the case (from my memory: no damages awarded, Petrofsky specifically enjoined to not distribute a certain document) uncontroversial enough to include without a reference?

The reference at lwn.net does quote the Merkey v. Perens, et al. filing very briefly. I therefore believe that including a link to the court document is appropriate, in the interest of completeness. If we consider lwn.net to be a "reliable, independent" source (reliable, yes; independent, questionable), then including the court document shows that they did not misquote it, either accidentally or deliberately.

When you say "much better to stick to what reliable independent sources say," you do realize that these reliable independent sources look at the court document and then say something about it. So by pointing to the court document itself, we are actually bringing the information one step closer to the user; the user may read the document for himself and make his own decision, rather than relying on someone else to interpret it. Pfagerburg 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your deletion of Margita Bangová, but noticed that the talk page is still there at Talk:Margita Bangová. Should that be kept, or will it eventually be deleted? I noticed that the presence of the WPBiography template and its rating means that the article is still listed in the WPBiography assessment lists (for now at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/131). Also, the following on the talk page documented that the article had been cited in a newspaper - is that sort of thing normally kept somewhere if an article is deleted?

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Leo, Peter (4 August 2005). "Panhandling for fun and profit". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Actually, the newspaper cite is linked, in the "details" bit above, to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2005#August 2005, so the talk page template can be dumped if the rest of the page is deleted. But what about the discussion on the talk page? What do you think? Carcharoth 15:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait a bit and see if anything productive emerges, was my thought here. It may be that someone can come up with something other than the tabloid immigrant-bashing crap, although I doubt it. In a week or two if nothing much is happening it can be nuked. It is not an important story, IMO, just a bit of human interest in a local paper. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a look at the Google cache. I agree. Why people don't write about the real story of begging in general (for which there are undoubtedly lots of sources), and insist on focusing on the human interest stories, I don't know. Still, the link to The Man with the Twisted Lip, if a laughable piece of original research, was interesting. My view on some of this is that there are some respectable articles that could be written, but they would not be Wikipedia articles, but original articles. Begging is a good example of an article that consists of various odds and ends thrown together. The accumulated wisdom, opinions, and half-remembered thoughts of a few Wikipedia editors, plus some random legal stuff and "story" examples, along with a smattering of pictures. I might point that out to User:Uncle G, who has a theory on how articles like this are written ("not very well" is the short answer). Carcharoth 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe Uncle G will do one of his rewrites. But yes, "not very well" describes it quite neatly I think. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I noticed that you'd blocked Nikola Smolenski for revert warring on this article. jpgordon protected the article a few minutes earlier as an alternative to blocking but in the circumstances this now seems a bit redundant, since Nikola was the leading agent in the revert war. jpg's confirmed that he doesn't mind if another admin undoes the block. Would you mind doing the honours? -- ChrisO 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock or unprotect, either is good. Whatever you think will work better for the article. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting is better. Unblocking Nikola wouldn't be appropriate in the circumstances. As you say, he needs to learn not to revert war. He's been causing problems on a range of articles, not just this one; it's a generic problem with his editing style. I can't act myself because the version of the article that editors are fighting over is one that I wrote last month (i.e. I'm too close to the action), hence my earlier request that you do the unprotection. -- ChrisO 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now unblocked Nikola as per the request on unblock-en-l. The conditions are outlined here and basically prohibit him or her from editing any article, though allowing the user to respond to a mediation case and to contact you here for clarification about the block. In other words, a very limited unblock, though these conditions expire in 24 hours (when your original block would have done). If you believe this is inappropriate, please yell and scream at me. If you find Nikola violating these conditions, an immediate reblock would of course be appropriate. I will monitor the contributions as well. --Yamla 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to learn? Your insolence has no limits.

JgZ, I hope you will realize that you were wrong when you blocked me. The edit war was not started by me, but by PalestineRemembered, who is currently subject of an arbitration, and in any way, I reverted as many times as him but I don't see you blocking him.

You wrote that I was "edit warring over a copyright-violating and in any case completely unreliable website, continuing immediately after expiry of a block for doing the same thing": that is simply not true. The previous block by Chris was because of me restoring link to a website mirror on that site (which is technically a copyright violation, but acceptable per Wikipedia policies). If you bothered even to click on it, you would see that the link on Gazimestan speech is not a copyright violation. For much more details you may see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-02 Bruce Borland.

I am on Wikipedia far longer than you, oftenly worked on sensitive topics like this one, and have never been blocked. I hope that you will apologize to me because of this. Nikola 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how to avoid being blocked for edit warring: don't edit war. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; I saw that you had previously deleted a page for Damug Warfang, a villain in the Redwall series of books. I'd like to recreate this article as part of WikiProject Redwall, but I wanted to check to see why exactly you had deleted the last incarnation to avoid making the same mistakes. I will take special precautions to make this article consistent with articles for other Redwall characters. Thanks. GlassCobra 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your frustration with the page, there is, at the top of the talk page a slew of AfDs, several of which suggested a redir to Al Gore, and none of which was chosen as the option for that page. This was very bold of you, but it also overrides consensus and essentially deletes a page that has survived several AfDs against the consensus. Please undo your blanking and redir of the page. --Thespian 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Policy vs. "consensus". Guy (Help!) 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh? What, precisely, is the policy violation? Inconvenient facts? Pusher robot 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no policy violation. We have a growing conspiracy to whitewash an article with notable material. This concern needs to move to the next level of administrative review, and pronto. Robert K S 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy: ignoring the above, who both seem to have agendas, I'd like to know what policy you believe was violated, as you haven't said anything about redirecting in order to adhere to a policy. You said it was just 'ridiculous', and you did so, despite precedence to these articles (and hell, we have an entire category List of noted U.S. presidential relatives, so notoriety by beng related to the president counts, and Gore was a pretty notable Veep). There was also clear consensus by virtue of the AfDs; it got kept 5 times. This isn't a small change, it's a major one, instituted in a rather sloppy way (as evidenced by the not changing the page you were redirected to, which specifically says, 'If you're looking for his son go here'). I'm asking you to revert your edit yourself before I need to take this higher. Even if there are a lot of reasons for what you did, you can surely see that the implementation of it was hasty and against policies. --Thespian 20:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP and WP:NOT tabloid journalism. This person has, thus far, done precisely nothing of note, other than get busted. He is a private individual, not a public person. His father is a public person, but that does not - absolutely does not - remove any right to privacy of his family. If the son chooses to go on a media offensive or something then that's different, but for now this is "teen busted, pictures at eleven". A great big no big deal. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, he's a 25-year-old man, who seems to have been arrested driving one of his father's vehicles, and none of this actually addresses the issues of deleting by redirect. We're not talking about a page that came to exist yesterday; it's been around for near to 4 years, survived many attempts to delete, and it wasn't correct to override. --Thespian 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He's also an online media publisher. Alcarillo 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at the link Majeston added in the "see also" section of the article on Rodinia, the oldest known supercontinent? The link is to "The Urantia Book" and the explanation he gave in the talk page... Well, I do not know what to say. I certainly do not want to go into a revert war (I already deleted the link twice and that's enough for me). However, I remember you do have a view on mixing science and funny ideas (to use an euphemism), so I would like to learn your opinion on whether we should let it stay. Thanks in advance. --Friendly Neighbour 20:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article cites McMenamin as its authority on Rodinia and McMenamin cites Urantia as the original source of the discovery of Rodinia the Urantia reference certainly deserves a link in the article about Rodinia. ".....one wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, [b]30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed. [/b]The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of Wegener’s ideas on continental drift. Perhaps he or she was, or had contact with, an expatriate from Nazi Germany. Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176) "

At this time I am only providing the link between Rodinia and Urantia. Subsequently, I will develop the article to incorporate more between McMenamin and his Urantia discoveries of Rodinia.Majeston 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you redirected the Al Gore III page, thus non officially deleting it. Can you please remove the redirect. I explained the reasoning on Talk:Al Gore III#Redirect. Thanxs and have fun editing. Jumping cheese 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but what you did was extremely bad form and an abuse of admin privileges, especially since you contributed absolutely zilch to the ongoing discussion. Instead you acted unilaterally to in effect remove an article. Do your homework. Al Gore, III is no less notable than the Bush daughters, or even his own sister Karenna. Yet they have their own pages. Moreover, the man is an associate publisher of an online magazine. That alone would qualify as notable. Alcarillo 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, right. If you're involved it's an abuse because you're involved, if you're not it's an abuse because you're not. I've yet to see any evidence of what this guy is notable for, other than (largely politically-motivated) tabloid crap. WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Involved in what? Tell me what Noelle Bush is notable for. She has an article and, front and center, there's the section about her drug arrest. Then there's this guy, who's only claim to fame is to have been the grandson of senator/failed presidential candidate. That's certainly less notable than the son of a senator/failed presidential candidate.Alcarillo 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Al Gore III. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. bd2412 T 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the review because it's in the wrong forum. The dispute over whether the article should be a redirect should be resolved on the talk page in the first instance, and following other appropriate steps in resolving disputes, our dispute resolution process, if this fails to achieve consensus. --Tony Sidaway 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, I have opened an RfC on the article's talk page, Talk:Al Gore III#Request for Comment. Your participation is welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the discussion above about Talk:Margita Bangová, I see that deletion discussion is taking place at Talk:Al Gore III. I don't want to be too pedantic, but one of the reasons that deletion discussions take place at AfDs or DRVs is so that a record remains of why something was deleted. Indeed, that is the reasoning behind part of the G8 criteria for speedy deletion: "Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist, unless [...] It contains deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere". What are your views on preserving deletion discussion that occurs on talk pages? I think that in cases where discussion refers to sensitive material, e-mail should be used, and if people want to reduce the visibility of discussion debates than blanking the discussion is sufficient. Deletion of discussion really does confuse people later if they are trying to find out what happened. Carcharoth 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be pedantic, then. If you were being pedantic, it is not a deletion, after all. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes pedantry is good. I was hoping for more than that. Let me try again. If there is deletion discussion on a talk page, should that talk page be deleted? This is not a leading question, but an attempt to preserve relevant discussion. I mentioned either at the BDJ arbitration case or at WT:BLP, that admins deleting an article should take more care over talk pages. In particular, if a deletion ends up at DRV, it is a waste of time to repeat discussion that may have already taken place on the talk page. I see you recognise this by deleting pages but leaving the talk page as a venue for discussion. Where then should that discussion be preserved? A long, long time ago, deletion discussions took place on article talk pages. Then a separate venue (VfD) was set up. At least I think that was how it worked. VfD eventually became AfD. We keep AfDs as a record of what happened. If deletion discussions are going to take place on article talk pages, then, if the conclusion is to keep something deleted, that discussion should be moved to an archive somewhere. You simply move the page, and then delete the redirect that is left behind. The same thing should happen with redirects. When I redirect a page that has a talk page, I try to ensure that the talk page discussion is not lost, and is either moved, merged, or linked to, from a relevant place, usually the talk page of where the redirect is pointing. Carcharoth 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have come here to troll, then kindly ever so nicely pretty please fuck off. If you want to contact me I suggest you send email. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day. Sorry all this has wasted so much of everybody's time.

From another middle-aged but-not-so-surly bastard.

--Richard 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]