User talk:JzG/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:JzG

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pinaki ghosh (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 21 March 2007 (→‎Honesty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-May-2024. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.


Archive
Archives

archiving policy
privacy policy

Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me

  • "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
  • "The only thing necessary for the triumph of Wikipedia is for AOL to be rangeblocked." - Some other berk.
Read This First

If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.

Terms of Service
By posting on this page you accept the JzG Terms of Service. I endeavour to satisfy good-faith requests to the best of my ability, but if you act like a dick, I will call you a dick. If you act like a troll, I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off. If you want something from me, your best bet is not to demand it on pain of shopping me to ArbCom, because that way is pretty much guaranteed to piss me off to the extent that I will do whatever I can to thwart your plans. This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. I can be provoked, it's not even terribly difficult. You may find, if you provoke me enough, that I will do something I later regret. Only remember, you may regret it more. I am a middle-aged surly bastard who spends his working day wrestling spammers and beating Windows with a stick, but I am capable of seeing good in the most improbable people if they don't go out of their way to make me do otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user posts using a British sense of humour and does not repress those instantaneous motions of merriment.


Happy New Year!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg
Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

To-do

List of episodes for The Nick Cannon Show - dozens of one line articles need merging into the list. Shw cancelled due to low ratings, unlikely that there will ever be sufficient interest to justify articles on every episode.


Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article B. B. King, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Bottle Square

Thanks for explaining the situation to me. You did much better than anyone else who tired.

Most appreciated, may Wikipedia be with you

J19086

Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course

Hello Guy, My name is James Miller, and I posted the article that you deleted today. I wanted to cite references that this is not an advertisement, but instead a documentary film (which happens to teach filmmaking), as catalogued on IMDb [1]. I propose that this is no different a documentary than say, The Fog of War, which although is more famous since it deals with more political subject matter and has greater historical draw, is still the same category, and is still sold on Amazon like the Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course. What I would like to request from you is help in not making the entry sound like an Ad, because I assure you it's not. It is a documentary that is the subject of great debate in this public forum: DVXuser: [2] Also, I am an avid wikipedia enthusiast, and I struggled to make the DCFTC article as clean and well-linked as possible. Please help me make it even more reliable. Less photos? More of something else? Thank you for your effort on Wikipedia. Sincerely, James. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Proof of existence is not sufficient. You would need to show evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the producers. I can't think offhand of any other articles on training films, although I'm sure there must be some. It's been deleted before for the same reason, I notice. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. However, I am at a loss as to how to show proof of multiple non-trivial coverage of an Independent Documentary film other than IMDb, a Film Chat Forum, Amazon, and an Official site. Generally, there really aren't any other venues for an Independent documentary film than those. It is not going to air or release in theaters because it runs too long and is not affiliated with a major studio. That is the purpose in my mind for a home like Wikipedia, indpendent of major studio budgets. I did a search for "The Fog of War" and noticed that aside from the Sony Studio site and the author's site, it only appears on Wikipedia, IMDb, Amazon, and Rotten Tomatoes. The Film chat forum ought to take the place of Rotten Tomatoes in my case, since it is not sponsored by the producers, but totally independent. Please suggest some other nontrivial means of establishing coverage. Thank you sir. PS: The only portion of the article that was deleted before was a photo that I did not properly subtitle. That is all.

James T. Miller 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)James T. Miller[reply]

  • Precisely. Generally, there are no other venues. And Wikipedia is not a directory. So we typically do not have articles on traiing films. I think even the ones made by John Cleese, which acquired a degree of external coverage, are only discussed in his article, but I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand, and I just want to stress that I am not trying to promote these people's product. I just happen to own it and think that the world should be aware of it. That said, my question is, why is there an entry for The Fog of War when it has the exact same amount of nontrivial coverage. Whether or not the Digital Cinema Course is a training film, it is still a Category "Documentary" film that is of international fame and importance. Can we make the course made public to the world through Wikipedia simply as a means of reference to a documentary film without any external links to its official site or pictures? What I mean is that, this isn't an intra-company training film to teach plumbers how to properly plumb. This has become a phenomenon among filmmakers because it is the only one like it created in Hollywood. It has personally inspired me, as have other films about making movies in Hollywood. So as a documentary, documenting the current trends of filmmaking, such as Visions of Light with serves the same purpose, why can't it exist on Wikipedia? Thank you for you patience, sir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please don't use obviously invalid comparisons. The Fog of War is a documentary which won an Academy Award, and has an original score by one of the world's foremost living classical composers. Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course is an independently produced training video. See also WP:INN and arguments to avoid. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the DCFTC has won no academy award and has no famous composers, but the core theme is still the same. It is a famous documentary out to teach something, just as Fog of War is out to teach the rules of engagement in war (Rather than a training film for Generals). If you ask the average moviegoer "what is Fog of war?" they will have no clue, as opposed to "what is Snakes on a Plane". So both documentaries are famous to certain people. It is still a phenomenon among filmmakers. As a documentary, documenting the current trends of filmmaking, what needs to be modified on its page to exist on wikipedia? Thank you for your time. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Famous? Cite sources. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy, here are cited references, and there are more.

  • DVXuser "The online community for filmmaking" [3] - forum posting
  • IMDB "Earth's biggest movie database" [4] - user-edited directory
  • Credit given to Rush Hamden and DCFTC for inspiring modern filmmakers working on the show "24" [5] - trivial passing mention
  • Cinema Treasures gives credit to DCFTC for inspiring young filmmakers (temp article) [6] - not mentioned on that page at all
  • Amazon.com Page [7] - sales drectory
  • MySpace [8] - creator's MySpace page
  • Digital Cinema Course at SIGGRAPH 2000 [9] - no mention of this product on that page
  • YouTube (Thousands of views) [10] - creator's YouTube video
  • Filmmaking.com "The film and video industry's most trusted resource" (Front Page Pixel Directory) [11] - advert
  • Sell.com [12] - advert
  • DVinfo.net "The digital video information network" DCFTC present at a national Camera Test [13] - forum post
  • 2-Pop "The digital filmmaker's resource site" [14] - forum
  • Creative Cow [15] - news listings

Those were the sources already present. None of them qualify as non-trivial, none are primarily about this product, some do not mention it at all (at least not by name) and most are not acceptable as sources anyway due to being forums or not independent of the creators of the work. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Complaint Against PocklingtonDan

Why did you remove the complaint? I had been thinking about complaining since I saw it but could not complain because I was blocked. It also involved an election. John Wallace Rich 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already contacted the mediation groups, as well as the AMA and RfC. So far, I'm very disappointed in the response, not to mention defensive. I filed a legitimate complaint, and getting attacked by one administrator seems to lead to the whole inner circle keeping an eye on me, not to mention keeping its now Newspeak article killed in action. John Wallace Rich 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You think it's legitimate, but others think it's retaliatory. Your own actions are problematic. You need to show a bit more sign of accepting the community view of your conflicts of interest; you also need to ask nicely rather than demanding. AMA is a dead loss in my view, go to the mediation cabal or mediation committee. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my responses on my user talk page. John Wallace Rich 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're in dispute, uninvolved people see no sockpuppetry. End of story, really. Try dispute resolution, and try acknowledging that there may be fault or misperception on your side. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why is there no page on the Tourettes Guy? Afterall, you have pages on numa numa, not nearly as popular as the tourettes guy 1B6 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted, endorsed, endorsed some more, endorsed again, and then the endorsement endorsed. No credible non-trivial independent sources, end of story. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, dont talk to me like that, secondly, "non notable"; he gets over 300,000 hits a month, that to me is notable. 1B6 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk to you like what? I stated the facts. See the Wikipedia definition of notability - hit stats are fundamentally unverifiable anyway (and my vanity sitye gets around 100,000 a month so 300,000 for a supposedly massively popular meme is ridiculously low). Oh, and don't bother posting any more argumentation here. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did you delete a good edit of mine? wtf was the point. My god I hate you so much. --1B6 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting, if somewhat perverse position. I have no idea which supposedly "good" edit you are talking about, of course. Guy (Help!) 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Policy in a nutshell" for wp:sockpuppets. Does that jog your memory? 1B6 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiight. So you changed a policy page, and got reverted, and that's a cause for hatred?
Original version: Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else
Your version: Using a sock puppet to evade a block will result in the block counter being reset, and time added. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else.
Which is either a WP:POINT violation or just a bad edit, using jargon instead of clear English. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didnt distrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point, you on the other hand, are a complete bastard. 1B6 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that you're over-reacting at all, of course... Guy (Help!) 09:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • so Mabey you would like to explain how that is a bad edit, admin abuse in my opinion?
  • I can't believe I really have to explain this. What the nutshell said before:
Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else
What you said:
Using a sock puppet to evade a block will result in the block counter being reset, and time added. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else.
The first version does not require you to know what sock puppet means, and tells you what you should not do with an alternate account. Your version deals with a small subset of circumstances and consequences after the event, and is stated using jargon (sockpuppet, block counter). It assumes that the user has already been blocked which may not be the case, the whole point is to help them not to do the thing that gets them blocked. It replaces telling them where and why they may not use alternate accounts, with a statement that simply says that if they do get blocked for something, using puppets will get the block counter reset, which is factually incorrect as it may result in anything from no action to a ban. And above all it misses the point that use of sockpuppets by users who are not blocked is still forbidden, if they are used abusively.
And in any case it was a unilateral edit to a policy page, and any such edit is always liable to be reverted and challenges should be taken to the Talk page. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include, in this case the onus is on you to include this new nutshell description of the policy. Your sole justfication seems to be that nobody spent an hour explaining to you why it was wrong. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't reason with an asshole. --1B6 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough, but I did in this case at least try to. My fault for not simply deleting the comment as blatant trolling in the first place, I guess. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again?

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

Spam blacklist

Your input is requested here. I would add my own two-penneth, but I can't see the opinions of anon IPs carrying much weight over there. In my opinion regardless of the opinions of the people complaining about the blacklist, a wrestling fansite is not a credible, reliable source for an encyclopedia. It's well known among internet wrestling fans and has a domain name, but in reality that doesn't make it any more a reliable source than any number of geocities or tripod sites. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan RfAr

Please be advised that Sam Sloan has filed a request for arbitration against you. It appears that he has failed to notify you of this and, in the interest of time, as a Clerk, I am advising you directly rather than prodding him to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Trainer

Hi Guy, Firstly thank you for unblocking my account, it's great to be back on, and secondly i was wondering why it is now not possible to create a sports trainer article? I think it is blocked or something, why is this so and can it be undone so that the article can be re-created (to wikipedia standards). Thanks, (Bradleigh 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Try making a version at User:Bradles 01/Sports trainer and then take it to deletion review. The last one was pretty crummy, especially with the generic pictures and "sports trainer" slapped on the subjects' backs using cheap image editing software. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBeatty is now 'wikistalking' me on a SECOND article

I just posted this to Tbeatty's talk page.

  • In the past two days you have followed me to two seperate articles that I have been actively editing, that you had never edited before. Zombietime and Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_scandal When I did that a few weeks ago I was charged by an Admin with 'wikistalking' and given a 24 hr block. I encourage you to stop wikistalking me. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

I trust that you will deal with TBeatty's 'Wikistalking' the same way you dealt with mine. Thanks FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop de do! hip You were not an 'uninvolved admin' on Feb 21 either. ocrisy With the blatant favoritism displayed 'round here on a daily basis, It's no wonder people are leaving Wiki in droves, is it? Sorry for assuming that you were a fair admin who would treat equal actions by different editors the same. My mistake. it won't happen again. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was uninvolved enough then, and you are ignoring the rest: TBeatty is a decent enough editor and you are headed for a ban, at the very least a serious editing restriction. I have nothign further to add here, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it! Wikistalking is only Wikistalking when its done by a 'mouthy' editor who doesn't bow down and say 'Master' to the Admin ruling class! Civil POV pushing editors get a free pass, as 'decency' and subservience are the overwhelming concerns in this colonial tea-party where ediquitte and 'knowing your place' reign supreme! You don't have anything further to add. FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to tell you this for some time now. It's not your politics that is necessarily getting you in trouble, it's your attitude and bahavior while pushing those politics that is killing you. - Crockspot 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, but no banana. We are the Rouge Admin Cabal, our marching song is "We Will Block You", and you are at our mercy. Plus, checking the edits of biased editors is legitimate, but you could always try making less biased edits and that way you won't get reverted as often. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tbeatty's 'honesty' on display.... After admitting to 'Wikistalking' me to two articles including the US Attorney article: "You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits." diff he actually claims on the talk page of the article in question, that I Wikistalked him to said article ! "The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned." diff He was entirely civil in his fallacious and specious claims though, and we know that carries much more weight around here than a mouthy truthful editor ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't fault his reasoning. You could always try not being disruptive and tendentious of course. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having a hard time following along. "The other editor came here jjust to revert me." is an outright LIE, as he followed me to the article - but THANK GOD HE WASN'T INCIVIL, OR DISRUPTIVE ! Only dishonest and that's AOK around here, and as long as lies are cloaked in courteous civility! (like when CWC falsely claimed that you called DH a 'Neo Nazi') No PROBLEM ! - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the fundamental point here: you have never been anything but disruptive. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administorial dishonesty again, as can be expected! The FR archives and Mediator Jossi's own statement confirm substantial good faith nondisruptive efforts on my part, before BFP's sock puppet invasion. Of course you ALL chose to completely ingnore this DOCUMENTED PROOF in the findings of fact. Not enough Admin ass-kissing on my part is my guess. - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA controversy

Why did you revert my edit? Is this not a part of the political reaction? --KarlFrei 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We do not promote online petitions. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So this cannot be mentioned? It is still a part of the political reaction. How about if we don't add a link to the website? Of course, that goes against the policy of sourcing everything... --KarlFrei 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take it to the article's talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your Whitelist Review & Cleanup

Dear JzG|Guy - I am not sure this is the right place to bring this up but I noticed you have cleaned up the whitelist here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Review This cleanup is much appreciated and must be very time consuming. However the website 'online-casinos.com' used to be on the whitelist for a reason. It was linked to from the external links in blackjack. The link has now been removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackjack&diff=113831845&oldid=113149890 Please add this website back to the whitelist as it is referred to from within the article - quote: "This version is much more advantageous to the player, but requires a slightly modified basic strategy table (such tables can be generated using the external links)." Please add the domain 'online-casinos.com' back to the whitelist and also add the external link to the blackjack strategy calculator located on online-casinos.com back to the blackjack article. The website 'online-casinos.com' is not blacklisted - but the frase 'online-casino' is on the blacklist - there is a difference:-). Thanks you for all your hard work and contributions to Wikipedia, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The domain online-casinos.com was blacklisted as a spam domain. We already have online calculators which are not hosted on widely-spammed sites. I don't see a pressing reason to include that link, and almost any url with casino in it is probably inappropriate per WP:EL. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can the domain online-casinos.com be blacklisted for spam when it is impossible to add a link containing 'online-casino' to wikipedia - unless the domain gets listed on the whitlist by a senior edotor? It's impossible for any website containing 'online-casino' to spam should they wish to do so. Clearly the domain online-casinos.com must have been added to the spam list by mistake - this is not a spam site. I am aware that the blackjack article offers external links to two other blackjack calculators - however none of these calculater offers to make any customized strategy tables. Qoute from article "(such tables can be generated using the external links)" - as the link has been removed the article is now incorrect. online-casinos.com offers much usefull information for gamblers and would in my opinion add value to the article. A domain containing 'casino' is in my opinion not a reason to remove a link - there is already another link in the article with a URL containing 'casino'. In my opinion adding the link back would be the right thing to do - the whitelist could make a specific exclusion about the specific subpage in case you are worried about SPAM, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
  • You can't add a domain including online-casinos because online-casinos was blacklisted in response to it being spammed. You can't now, because people did, so it was blacklisted. Every site on the blacklist has been spammed at some point, and can't be any more, that is the whole point. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I understand this perfectly clear. However in the whitelist there used to be a specific line allowing a single link to 'online-casinos.com/blackjack/basic-strategy-calculator.php' - this link overruled the general 'online-casino' (without the 'S') i the blacklist (the entery into the blacklist has absolutly nothing to do with the specific site online-casinos.com). The line in the whitelist allowing the link was then removed (I guess while you did the whitelist review/cleanup). This entery into the whitelist made it possible to add a single link from the blackjack article to this specific page on online-casinos.com - but only to that specific page. This was approved by a senior editor in the gambling catagory. I think what happened was that you removed the line in the whitelist (I presume) and then you removed the link from the blackjack article adding the comment "Two is enough, this site is blacklisted so removing". The site was specifically not blacklisted before 'someone' decided to remove the line from the whitelist allowing the link in the first place. Two links is not enough - since the other two sites dont offer any tables. The blackjack articel promiced people that they can find such tables using the external links - but now they can not because the link has been removed. I am sure there has been a lot of spam from sites with url's containing 'online-casino' but I am also sure that there has been zero spam from the site 'online-casinos.com'. I find it a bit unfair to remove the link to this site for spam when there has been no spam. First of all there has been no spam second of all the witelist and the blacklist combined made it impossible to add any new links to online-casinos.com apart from that single link from the blackjack article. , 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The link does not seem to offer anything that is not offered by other, less spammy links. In general we should and do avoid linking to overtly commercial websites, and it's hard to think of anythign much more overtly commercial on the web than online casinos. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree that online casinos is very very commercial - but so is blackjack. Furthermore all the other external links in the blackjack article have information and links to online gambling sites - so they are no better or worse. In my opinion the url alone should not be the only factor that decides what can be linket to and what can not be linket to. I don't agree that the othere sites offer anything remotly similar to what this specific page offers. The tool on online-casinos.com can make perfect strategy charts for any rule variation with a few clicks - none of the other sites offer this. In my opinion this is a very usefull tool for people interested in blackjack. Furtnernore there is absolutly no banners or links to online gambling sites on this specific page and this makes i al lot less commercial then it could be. Please concider giving your decition a second thourght., 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fys

Uh Guy, can't you guys just avoid each other say for the next 12 months or so? (→Netscott) 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Love to. I don't recall asking him to stick his nose into a discussion between admins and a user Wikilawyering over a cxlearly appropriate block. Maybe you can persuade him to keep his hooter out in future? Guy (Help!) 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, because I see the both of you continuing down a rather disruptive path I'm making a polite request of both of you to try and make conscious efforst to avoid eachother whenever possible. Would you do that please? (→Netscott) 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Now go and see who was in that discussion first. I find it rather hard to let seasoned edit warriors get away with knocking policies which prevent edit warriors from edit warring, in an attempt to undermine enforcement against other seasoned edit warriors, previously sanctioned for edit warring, and apparently slipping back into edit warring again. Fys thinks edit warring is fine as long as you are right - which, in his view, he always is. He also perceives his bias as neutrality, a standard failing of politicians everywhere. What with him, Sloan, Watts, Leyden and others it feels like the trolls are all coming out of the woodwork right now. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I can think of is the RfC route. What I'm seeing is incivility on both sides here and that's just nonsense. I'm waiting on Fys to respond to my request... hopefully he'll agree to it and this type of draining and time sucking interaction can be limited. (→Netscott) 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever, really. As you know, his problem is that he bears a grudge from a block some months back. Gets an official "so what" from me, but I find it unhelpful to have him pitching in to support other edit warriors. Of course it doesn't help that we both like to have the last word, and it certainly doesn't help that in Fys' view anybody who disagrees with him is necessarily and unequivocalkly wrong and should apologise for daring to dispute his judgment :o) Guy (Help!) 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Elephant block...

What makes you think they're a sock? Steel thinks they're RunedChozo, but I haven't seen any supporting info... Georgewilliamherbert 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was discussed on WikiEN-l, where his trolling was incredibly blatant. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see such a discussion re PointCounterpoint, but what's the connection with One Elephant? Georgewilliamherbert 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two threads; that one, with oneelephant@gmail.com, and an unrelated one by the counterpoint user. As far as I can tell, there's no connecting string between them. The counterpoint user was Checkusered as a Runed sock a while ago. Did you or Steel conflate the two cases, or is there an actual connection I just didn't see? Georgewilliamherbert 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steel pointed me at a steward, who I'm emailing. Georgewilliamherbert 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OIC. No, I didn't block as a RunedChozo sock, I blocked for trolling. I think the elephant one is a different recurrent troll. It said it was leaving anyway (Parker Peters' MO). Guy (Help!) 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my already-stellar reputation...

...but about Butt pirate - was there ever an AfD on this? I can't seem to find one, and I noticed that it got speedied by you as a "nonsense" neologism? Leaving behind for the moment about speedying neologisms, it's actually a word that's pretty well in use in the States, and probably doesn't qualify for deletion anyway. Think you could restore it? I won't protest an AfD if that's the course you want to go, but still... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been deleted five times for various reasons, was salted for a while and re-created shortly after the salt was deleted, so all I did was migrate it into the new system. It included such stallar writing as The term "butt pirate" is an offensive reference to a person who actively seeks anal sex, an activity homosexual and some heterosexual men are assumed to engage in and 1980's Hardcore Punk artist and notable Gay activist Keith Cayea is believed to have coined the term in his band The Buttasters 1983 Single "All My Friends are Butt Pirates (Including Craig Cocker)". We already have {{wikt:butt pirate}}, this added only nonsense and speculation to the dicdef. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, I know I don't have your full confidence in these matters, but for what it's worth I continue to advise that you pick your battles, and this is one you could probably let go. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other guys

Guy, I'm going to be traveling for two weeks. Since TS is semi-protected, the TS guys have been hitting the daughter articles (Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome and History of Tourette syndrome. Causes and origins of Tourette syndrome not hit yet - beans!)) Maybe they can be semi-protected during my absence? Or if you want a belly full of TS guys, add them to your watchlist? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Thomas J.J. Altizer

I have reinstated this article in my own name. I recognise that it was written by a banned user but the content is valid. As the policy permits, I have re-made the edit and taken responsibility for it. This is not intended to show disrespect to you in any way, simply to make the redlinks you left blue. The purpose of banning users is to remove disruptive influences, not to anathematise all their works. Please consider not deleting articles on this basis in future. If a banned user is contributing in a positive way, there is no pressing need to further punish them. Grace Note 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shubbery

Hello JzG, I hope you are well. I would like to notify you of the following action I have taken:

Speedy deletion of Template:Shrubbery

A tag has been placed on Template:Shrubbery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

TSD1 - the template is derisive and inflamatory. It is used to mock the arguments of other editors and is therefore unhelpful and counter-productive to building the encyclopedia

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Template:Shrubbery|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Johntex\talk 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where's that "do not template the regulars" essay when you need it? Sometimes those arguments need mocking. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be {{templater}}. Recommend you take this to DRV. It should at least get a listing on TFD. Had shrubbery on my shortlist for months now, and no one's ever complained the few times I've used it. I find it to be a mood enhancer. — coelacan — 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Shrubbery. — coelacan — 09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When one is in a hole.. (regarding FAAFA)

Hopefully FaAfA takes heed to your words.. he didn't when I said the same thing on the RfArb. *sighs*. It's one of the bad things about having the Proposed Decision being viewable by all while things are being discussed, because someone who's frustrated and sees he's going to be out for a year no matter how he acts has no reason to not go out in a blaze of "glory". SirFozzie 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that. Seems to me that this would be a fairly typical outcome when that is going on. In any case I am disappointed that he decided to leave on that sort of note. --BenBurch 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFD nomination

Note: a template that you created, Template:Shrubbery, has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. I thought that it'd be helpful for you to explain your logic behind creating it, and that sort of thing, or otherwise offer any non-shrubbery excuses explanations. Thank you, and have a great life! GracenotesT § 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, you and your misleading signature :). Happy editing, GracenotesT § 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

I'd like to report a couple of socks to you, but first a little back story. I started Designer Whey Protein and Biological Value a while ago. As you know, because you blocked him, there was a sockpuppeteer operating there. A sock came complaining on my talk page about the Biological Value article, I went out of my way to notify a ton of science experts to work on the article (over 50 which took a while becuase I didn't know where to find them), not knowing he was a sock. Anyway Yankees identified him as a sock and tagged him, so I moved on and started the Michael Jordan FAC which I've been planning for months. I decided I'd try to get back to the article, get the tags off of it, and see if I can get an expert to work on it later.

However today Designer was tagged for deletion and as spam by a new account and an anon, who have admitted they are the same account. I argued it shouldn't be deleted as it has 106,000 google hits and there are surely non-notable indepent sources which could be used to verify it's existence. I tried to provide some but they were admittedly weak and it will probably get deleted. I've been extremely busy with the Michael Jordan FAC, so I'm not going to argue for it anymore (Although Bill Phillips mentions it in his Supplement review and I'm sure there are of articles in bodybuilding mags talking about it, as it was the first brand of Whey protein to hit the market and be successful). This isn't about the afd as I'm sure it will get deleted and I don't really care about it anymore. However, all of a sudden this was left on my talk page:[16] and I'm not sure what to do. I'm telling you all this instead of reporting on the official page as you are already familiar with it, I notified the other two admins who blocked socks of the original sockpuppet. Bssically my interest in those two articles in reaching negative integers and would like to be left alone by all these socks and single purpose accounts. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Socks or not, it reads as advertorial. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Outlaw Halo

The Outlaw Halo Award
Is hereby awarded to Guy, for his brilliance and audacity in creating the WP:NCR policy and page, and valiantly defending it from any usurpers, whether appropriately attired as superheroes or not. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(about the award)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association

Good afternoon (GMT time); thanks for your help at the above page - it's great to see that Wikipedians who don't have access to the sysop buttons but who reguarly exercise administrator-style actions (eg closing debates) can count on those with the mop to provide a hand where necessary. Take a star!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For coming to the aid of a non-administrator promptly, and making a real efficient job of the MfD on Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association .. I, Anthony, award you, JzG the Working Man's Barnstar!

anthonycfc [talk] 14:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you around — anthonycfc [talk] 14:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning of Edits

Good evening (GMT time); users have raised concerns over the pages that you deleted and those you never. Discussion is currently under way at my talk page, at this section. Your input would be appreciated!

Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screamers (1995 film)

You removed an amazon link from Screamers (1995 film). I have reverted it because it is a reference for the date of release fro the VHS tape. You're welcome to remove it when you can replace it with a source that is more acceptable to you. Cburnett 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of inappropriate links to Amazon, we should not be sourcing stuff from off-the-page sales pages. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, leaving something unattributed because it links to amazon is not acceptable to me. Furthermore, you need to better explain why WP:NOR is relevant and what aspect of WP:ATT you are referring to. Or is your answer to revert and not discuss, because that's a good quality in an admin. Please, tell me how WP:EL (a guideline) trumps sourcing information. "Please see WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:EL. The onus is on the editor seeking to include." is definitely insufficient. Cburnett 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, since the fact itself barely rises to the level of trivial I'll just remove it altogether, that should solve the problem handily. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can't rationalize why an unsourced statement is better than a link to amazon under the guise of a guideline (WP:EL) which I have no problems removing if you can source it elsewhere, so your course of action is to label it trivia and remove it? You have no grounds to delete the VHS release date. Cburnett 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can rationalise it perfectly easily. We do not need to link to an off-the-page sales advert as a source for anything. If we can't find a better source and the data is controversial, then we can remove it. Actually of course it is not even slightly controversial, and is trivially easily verified without linking to a sales page, but the release date on VHS is really not sufficiently important to merit any kind of dispute. Doesn't say if it was PAL or NTSC anyway, so quite likely misleading for some markets. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's trivially easy then go ahead and find one. Until you do, you have no grounds to delete the source. Cburnett 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that it violates WP:EL, WP:SPAM, is market specific data without the market identified, and is in any case of no evident value. Oh, and the onus is on the editor seeking to include content to justify its inclusion, so you're reversing the burden of proof. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both are guidelines (one is even a MoS guildeine), yet attributing the source is policy. Policy trumps guidelines. As an admin, I shouldn't have to be saying this. Cburnett 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as an experienced Wikipedia I should not have to be telling you that we do not link to off-the-page sales pages. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what policy is that stated in again? Just find another source, which you say is "trivially easy", and things will be peachy for all. I added the date and I sourced it per policy. If you don't like the source and rationalize it under a guideline, then it's your deal to replace it with one satisfactory to you. Cburnett 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the "don't be so stupid" policy, right under the bit where it says "hey, look, as one of the top twelve websites in the world it's a realy great idea to get your sales links right in the articles, so don't let people do that". Guy (Help!) 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good way to have dealt with this, though, would have been to find a replacement source as opposed to just removing a source that's being used. Perhaps that's the only citeable evidence found that there was a VHS release at this point? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, there are many thousands of links to deep content in Amazon, and the vast majority of them need to be removed. Is the VHS release date a controversial fact? Not as such. So I left it there with the off-the-page sales link removed. For some reason cburnett appears to believe that he VHS release date is of vital importance and it is sufficiently controversial to require a citation, unlike many other facts in that article, and the only available source is Amazon's sales page so that must be used, and he seems to believe that it;s my responsibility to justify removal, rather than his, as the editor seeking to include content, to justify that inclusion. I dispute pretty much the whole lot of that. And above all I dispute the need to link to sales pages, of any retailer, however big. Links like this are a large source of such problems, and another large source is links which should use the ISBN magic. It's going to take a while to get the link count down if we have a Federal case about every one. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just disagree with you that this is even an issue of minor importance at this stage. It's not even an external link in a section, but a reference. What if someone does challenge it? Then what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do challenge it - PAL and NTSC versions often had different release dates back in the days when I was active in film, and this does not actually make it clear. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If only the release date had a reference for it, you could research that answer yourself. Guess what? It does. The answer: NTSC. Tell me again why leaving it unsourced is better for wikipedia because you're contradicting yourself: link is a Bad Thing (TM) but you want to know more source information (NTSC vs. PAL) which requires a source. Actually, I can't think of a better example of contradiction. Cburnett 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the problem: the reference is not a reference as such, it's the Amazon sales page. Click here to buy. Exactly the kind f link we remove every day. Exactly the kind of link spammers insert, and get blocked for. And guess what they aregue? "You've linked to Amazon here, it's only fair that I should link to my site". No. We should not link to pages with a "buy here" link. Even if it is Amazon, even if it is the easiest place to find a particular piece of sub-trivia. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the link when the page was protected. This is abusing your administrative privileges and a much worse offense than a link to amazon. Do not do it again. Cburnett 13:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh? Sorry, I did not even notice it was protected. But wait! You used your administrative privileges to revert that! Which is surely far worse! This has to be one of the most abysmally fucking stupid disputes I've ever been involved in, and frankly I find I can no longer bring myself to give a shit about giving a sales link to Amazon in order to prove the massively contentious and vitally important date of publication on VHS, especially since VHS is pretty much unavailable now (most UK retailers don't stock VHS players any more). Ludicrous, utterly utterly ludicrous, and I am dreadfully ashamed of both of us. Next time a spammer comes along insisting we allow hium to link his site because we link to Amazon's off-the-page adverts I will send him your way. Cheerio, Guy (Help!) 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have said ALL ALONG that I would take any link over amazon and that no link is not acceptable (policy trumps guidelines, always). That was my position when someone else tried removing the link. And it appears [17] and [18] (found by User:One Night In Hackney) have a date we can use. End of story.
If that "spammer" is trying to reference something that is hard to reference and can only find a source on a commercial site then by all means send them my way (you probably really don't want to do that as it's obvious who I'll side with: WP:CITE). Otherwise, if you're going to send all spammers my way, then you never understood my point and my argument. Cburnett 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in order to game the system all Joe Spammer has to do is find something suitably obscure, include it on his site, and bingo! instant approved spam, with admins prepared to revert a protected article in order to defend it. Genius. I've half a mind to set up a site with Betamax release dates just to make a point, but in the end I have better things to do with my time than war over trivia. Mind you, I consider removal of spam non-trivial, so I may be the one who is badly off base, most people doin't give a toss about that. {shrug}. Incidentally, you may be interested in this parallel situation: m:Talk:Spam blacklist#exoticindiaart.com Guy (Help!) 14:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cburnett, I don't see in WP:CITE or WP:ATT where they require a citation for the VHS release date information. CITE, being a guideline, defers to the policy, ATT. ATT states, "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Should seems to be an important aspect of the policy. I don't think the veracity of the stated VHS release date is likely to be challenged (although it certainly could be based on this contradiction to Amazon). So without a challenge, what else is left that requires a citation? IF there is a challenge or an editor inserts a citation, then a reliable source is required. Is Amazon a reliable source? Does Amazon have an "editorial oversight or fact-checking process"? If not, it seems justifiable to challenge the source as a questionable source as defined in WP:RS. I could be wrong. --JJLatWiki 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports trainer / User:Bradles 01

Hi Guy, you recently unblocked User:Bradles 01. He's still obsessed with sports trainer--he's recreated the article twice, and after those changes got reverted he's started a discussion at Talk:Athletic trainer to get consensus to recreate sports trainer. A new user, User:Kitti-Kat01, has arrived, and agrees with Bradles' ideas. This is manifestly a Bradles sock. I don't think Bradleigh is really interested in playing by the rules; could you take a look at this situation, please? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting this article - it's been getting tiresome but it's awfully hard to just walk away when someone is messing around. andy 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bradleigh is blocked anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was..

trying to figure out how you picked up on her. :-) (→Netscott) 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bircham International University

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bircham International University. I think it deserves a speedy keep and a stern warning to the nominator. Arbustoo 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent MFD vote

Just letting you know that I've added two addition subpages similar to the first, User:Otheus/notes and User:Otheus/aa, to the MFD description. FeloniousMonk 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.

from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.

File:Bus Stop.JPG

i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.

many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.thompson

ps... i have written to the user that removed the links to appologise, also put the above paraghrahps on a discussion board on the spilsby article

  • No problem, common newbie error. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]


Edith Jacobson deletion

Hi Guy, I saw that you deleted the small article on edith jacobson because of copyright issues. I just wanted to ask if the problem only was that there were things literally taken from another website or if the article had other problems. I am only the (quite inadequate ;)) wikifier-person of the group that created the article, so thats why i don't know if the contents involved plagiarism. It was still a stub, the intention is that tomorrow the full article (with appropriate notes and references) is being set up, hopefully without copyright problems. Marcel flaubert 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was just that there was verbatim copied text from another websote there, with no assertion of permission. Feel free to try again. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks for watching out, and I hope everything is sorted out tomorrow for the totall article launch, see ya! Marcel flaubert 13:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Is this spamming?

[19] - seems to be a representative of this minor basketball league posting in the pages of each city that has a team. --BenBurch 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi

Hey Guy,

Just a favor to ask you: I'm an undergrad at Syracuse, and I'm writing a long analytical essay on Wikipedia's organization, user interaction, etc. I was wondering if I could ask you 5 or 6 questions so that I could get an inside perspective from someone other than myself. I went through my mental rolodex of active users with experience and you came up in my mind. A short paragraph for each would be fine. If you could find the time, that would be great and I would really appreciate it.

Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please send Wikimail, will have a look. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Almeda University

Hi Guy, what do you think about this? (Copied from WP:RFPP):

Fully protected since March 10 even though it was the lead story in the Signpost on March 12. I don't think the mere threat of paid editing is a good reason to protect an article. Watchlisting can deal with this kind of threat; full protection should be a last resort. Kla'quot 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please speak to JzG, since he probably knows the background of the situation. – Steel 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kla'quot 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZineWiki

I see you created an AfD. As you might have seen, this article was previously deleted. Have you considered making a fresh AfD subpage for this? The previous AfD was rather large so it is unclear that this is a new open debate. —dgiestc 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To clarify, it wasn't previously deleted, it was closed with no consensus (thus keep), but your (second) nomination for some reason was appended to the existent (archived) AfD page rather than creating a new one. Cheers, 131.111.8.104 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I misread it because I saw the previous debate on notability concerns and just assumed... —dgiestc 19:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZineWiki afd problem

Hi, your AfD nomination of ZineWiki ([20]) has some technical problems. Can you re-format it properly as 2nd nomination? Can't do it myself, way too technical for me :) 131.111.8.104 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty

I would like to nominate the Wikipedia community for deletion but I do not want to be accused of being disruptive. Further, I do not know how to nominate it for deletion. My reasons are on the talk. If I can get permission, I would like someone to nominate it on my behalf because it is a redundant article already in other articles. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almeda University

I have been observing the article and the heated discussions on Almeda University. I am not based in USA, so do not have much idea of the reputation of Almeda; but from reading everything about Almeda University its existince in Wikipedia seems questionable to me. Is it big enough to have a Wikipedia existance? I am doubtful. It seems to me like thousands of spammers who want to be in Wikipedia to get some free publicity. I feel this article should go for deletion. Seek your opinion.--Pinaki ghosh 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_24&oldid=116679853"