User talk:JzG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Apr-2007. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.

Archives
Archive Archive 2: The Sequel Archive 3: Return of the Archive Archive 4: The Revenge - This Time It's Personal Archive 5, Jan 2006 (general archive) Archive 6, Feb 2006 (general archive) Archive 7, Mar 2006 (general archive) Archive 8, Apr 2006 (general archive) Archive 9, May 2006 (general archive) Archive 10, June-ish 2006 (general archive) /Archive-Aug, August 2006 /Archive-Sep, September 2006 /Archive-Oct-2006 /Archive-Nov-2006 /Archive-Dec-2006 /Archive-Jan-2007 Archive of discussions pertaining to Jason Gastrich Archive of discussions pertaining to personal rapid transit Archive of discussions pertaining to adminship and requests archiving policy privacy policy

[edit] 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))

[edit] Shubbery

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

[edit] Offline

I'm offline Sunday 25 March, 2007, for a french horn festival in Nottingham including the premiere of a salute to Dennis Brain written by Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, played by Michael Thompson, and commissioned by a group of fifty people including my son. We have an autographed copy of the score, and there is an arrangement for all abilities which will also be premiered, my son will be playing in that. Aged twelve - how cool is that? Proud parent time. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to that, have a great time. Give your son some props - I played French Horn for a year, it's not easy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Not easy" is an understatement - opinion is divided on whether the horn or the oboe is the most difficult orchestral instrument to play, both are notoriously fickle. Any given valve position will give you about a dozen notes on the horn, and some of them are less than a semitone apart. See if you can find a recording of The Hanover Band with Tony Halstead playing the Weber concertino some time - absolutely remarkable (plus Tony is a really nice guy). Guy (Help!) 00:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't do reeds, so I say french horn. Either way, I'm suitably impressed. Enjoy it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy, this wouldn't be the one in the Lakeside Arts Centre at my university, roughly 11am tomorrow would it? – Steel 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It was, and it was absolutely fantastic - beyond all imagining. Especially the concert at the end. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing a community ban on BenH

Hey there Guy, I recently took it upon myself to propose that User:BenH be formally banned by the community. It's been almost a year since you banned him for disruptive edits while he had an RfC pending on him, and instead he has created numerous sockpuppets. One of them appears to have been active as late as March 20.

Since you were the one who imposed the initial indefinite block, your support would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, and good luck to your son! Blueboy96 05:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, I can't type ... accidentally put you as a BenH sock ... can you forgive me? Blueboy96 14:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] myg0t DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of myg0t. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. cacophony ◄► 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh FFS, not again. I bet hundreds of puppets will be along to tell us how notable they are. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just providing proper notice. cacophony ◄► 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political operative?

Please view ongoings of Kzq9599 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). This user has accused others of being paid political operatives and is driving really hard with a political agenda. What do you think? That user's behavior is very strange. Arbustoo 02:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed as a political operative, already banned. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599. Arbustoo 14:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, BryanFromPalatine. An old friend. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Or his brother. Or his uncle. Or his brother-in-law's dentist's nephew. --BenBurch 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Bauer DRV

Hi. The Bauer DRV (q.v.) was closed for the moment before you could see and reply to my question to you there - so I'd appreciate any thoughts here instead. Regards, Newyorkbrad 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

Thanks, Guy, I can't thank you enough for your time. If there is anything I can help you with don't hesitate to ask.

Yours,

AdamBiswanger1 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

For you. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible exemption from 3RR regarding BenH

I was wondering, Guy--once the community ban on User:BenH is formally enacted, would any reverts done to clear out damage by his socks be exempt from the three-revert rule? I always assumed that reverts from edits of community-banned people were exempt, but wanted to make sure. Blueboy96 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The coveted Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to JzG for diligence both on Wikipedia and on Meta in fighting spam. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change in Template:DRV top

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

[edit] Title (closed)

Title – Decision – trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

DISCUSSION

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk • contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk • contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental blocking

Hi, I created this new account from a public computer because you accidentally blocked my normal account User:WPBio. If you look at the checkuser report, it confirms that while the other 2 accounts appear to be sock puppets/meat puppets, my IP is unrelated. I would greatly appreciate if you could unblock WPBio because I am 100% unrelated to the other individual(s) and I simply had the misfortune of getting dragged into this whole controversy by responding to a request for help on the living person notice board. I apologize for any inconvenience. Iswinterover 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was no accident. Special:Contributions/WPBio shows no evidence of anything other than tendentious editing in the footsteps of a banned user. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The checkuser established that WPBio is not a sockpuppet. Your edits to his user and talk pages are in error. You should unblock him. Frise 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I disagree. WPbio registered to interject himself into the situation where other socks were. Maybe mere coincidence, but... his second edit was to change policy concerning BLP to affirm the claims made by the socks at the Wilson article. Thirdly, WPbio admitted on his talk that he has had at least one previous wikipedia account, but "can't remember" what it was. I think the logical concludion given all this is WPbio is Bryan. Arbustoo 01:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Why did you request a checkuser if you were just going to disregard the results? Frise 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      - I'll answer your question: It's not the results alone that decided the block.
      - Now answer my question. Your first edit in nearly a month was on this page concerning a new editor.[1] Your recent activity is concerned solely with this event. Why? Arbustoo 04:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Guy, this might be of interest to you. Arbustoo 14:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't prod him with a sharp stick, it will only get you in trouble, but you might want to take it to the admin noticeboards. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word Association subpages

Please stop deleting the subpages for Word Association. There was no decision in any of the deletion process for deleting these games. The decision was to delete the ARCHIVES. Thank you.Squad51 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They have nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia, my reading of the MfD is delete subpages and all variants leaving the main game. deletion review is second on the right down the hall. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- That was not the decision made, nor do you have the right to make a decision alone. I am reporting you for vandalism.Squad51 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree. There was no reason to delete it. It was a sandbox after all :D At0m1Ca 14 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Maybe vandalism report could take it too far, but still, the decision stated to delete certain subpages, not every single one of them. I know that it has nothing to do with encyclopedia building, but I see it as a big help for people to understand how pages should be edited and whatnot. Freqrexy 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Sup JzG

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wiki vandalism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Milto LOL pia 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Cornuke

Bob Cornuke, an LBU alumnus article has been hit 5 times in the last month with the same OR, NPOV, and COPYVIO material dumped in by SYITS (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). SYITS is a SPA and has never edited on any other article. The user has been warned and has refused to put edits for consensus. Arbustoo 01:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] map

I have requested speedy deletion, as on [2] Cfitzart 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Ake

I've been going through Category:Protected and unprotecting long-protected pages that no longer need it. Do you think it's time to unprotect Jeffrey Ake? In your protection edit summary you mentioned an OTRS request. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 13:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an appeal being run and people were publishing personal info of the teacher running the appeal. Not sure what the risk is now. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford

Hi, if you have a moment, would you please reduce the protection level to semi on this article? The main problems were being caused by new/anon users, so I think we're safe with edits from established users. Thanks, El on ka 01:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madison University

Could you block the IP and Ghancock01 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Arbustoo 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Trotsky (talk • contribs)

Is it just me, or is this user page a bit...much? --Calton | Talk 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not just you. Too many links to one domain. I have cleaned it and left the user a note. He's also been asked to consider a username change. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathcamps

Guy, can you revisit this discussion, because they didn't like what I was doing at German Wikipedia, so I'm stopping for the moment. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that, if it needs to be seconded. I'm worried that the domains aren't going to blacklisted. If not, what should be our next course of action? (I asked the same question there, so feel free to respond there.) --Iamunknown 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter

Thanks for your support, Guy, but I didn't know that a fan site couldn't be an encyclopedia. Sure, fan site comes with the connotation that it's "OMG OMG DANIEL RADCLIFEEFEFE IS SOSOOOOOO HOT" but the Lexicon is a different example of a fan site: information about the books, true, recommended by the series' author, an excellent reference point. So, I agree with you but still feel I am correct to label it a fan site. After all, it receved JKR's Fan Site Award. Best, Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not mistake a site which fans edit for a fan site. JK Rowling clearly did, but we should not. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- All right then, we have a difference of opinion on fan sites. I would think a fan site would be a site edited by fans (as JKR does, I don't know why we wouldn't follow her stand); most of these sites are worthless crap, but some of them, such as the Lexicon, are excellent points of reference. It is unfortunate that most people rule out fan sites as WP:RS, but this is why I am against the argument "fancruft".
- Also, looking back at the conversation, I just want to make sure you didn't confuse my antecedent "this" meaning the Lexicon as this meaning Wikipedia? I agree that Wikipedia is not a fan site if that's what you were saying. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA

Oh dear. I'd just gotten discussion redirected to AMA, and now you're undoing me. I don't think MFD is very constructive at all in this case.

Since you have re-opened the MFD, does that mean you are committing to what you said on the Adminitrators' Noticeboard? Will you be creating a replacement organisation? --Kim Bruning 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will help. That's all I can do. If you can remodel AMA to fix the suckness, then I will reverse my !vote. I hold you in very high regard, especially as a builder of community. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preparing for RFA

Guy,

I'm thinking about requesting adminship sometime this Spring. Would you be interested in giving me some suggestions on preparing? Thanks, TheronJ 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kohs account

Just FYI, the MyWikiBiz account is currently unblocked by Jimbo. I saw you had blocked his role/sock account. - Denny 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Still needs to appeal the community ban. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also see this AFD, no consensus to delete. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

, Ah, the old "pitch till you win" game, eh? Gotta love Kohs. Well, he does, anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Noone loves any of these characters. You realize that through repeated unilateral deletion, though, the MyWikiBiz story just gets more unflattering? It's a real episode that many people and news agencies find notable. Aaronbrick 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be easy to find more than one semi-trivial independent source, then. Factive turns up nothing for me... Guy (Help!) 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New user adding Gastrich's name to SAB

Skeepdik (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) I reverted and it was added back. Arbustoo 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MyWikiBiz DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_29#MyWikiBiz

I respect your work a lot, Guy, and had no problem with a troll being blocked... the IAR deletion isn't a good idea. - Denny 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI re: Stephan Kinsella AfD

Guy, re: your reply to my comment in the third Kinsella AfD, which part of WP:COI do I appear to be violating? My understanding of the guideline is that in a case such as this, where I have (or, actually, had) an organizational connection with the article subject I should "exercise great caution" to abide by WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, and WP:AUTO. Which of those do you think I am violating? If you have no particular evidence to the contrary, please keep assuming good faith. I did not suggest that your nom was a bad faith one, but if you took my comment that way I apologize. As always, I certainly welcome the review of my fellow Wikipedians and I continue to wear my affiliations on my wiki-sleeve. Cheers, DickClarkMises 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody says you can't edit, only that you should take care, as you note above. I don't see a big problem with your edits, it's the appearance of the thing here, and also the possibility of subtle subconscious bias which editors who are not subject experts (which in this case will be most of us) cannot necessarily detect. Use introspection before committing to Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with declaring your affiliations, that's good, but as you note, you need to be circumspect. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS Ticket

Hi Guy,
There is a Right-to-vanish ticket with your name on it. I'm not sure if your still participating in the OTRS, but I thought you should know.
---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. I'm a newbie over there too. :) Ticket# 2007031010014662 ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha. That one fell out of my inbox. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bad faith deletion

I dont appreciate you deleteing XXL on the macedonian girlgroup. atleas tnot for the reason you where given. I see it as a bad faith deletion.you are well aware that they where notable. --Matrix17 14:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am not, actually. And the XXL article was 50% non-notable, 50% blatant attack. If you want ot say they were panned, cite reliable secondary sources for that. And by that I mean reviews of the criticism, not the criticism itself. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see by your user discussions here that their are other people also complaining and asking you why you put on deletion tags on many pages at the same time. And yes they are notable. just becuase the text is short doesnt mean it is a deletion worthy text. Keep that in mind.--Matrix17 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I am the kind of guy that thinks articles with on evidence of passing the primary notability criterion should be nuked. Yup, that gets some kickback. Yup, I'm completely comfortable that the project is better off without almost all of the thousands of articles I have personally deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You didnt even make the nomination properly!--Matrix17 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, the JavaScript didn't. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael S. Greco

I have provided 10 references at the moment. Is this enought to pass WP:BIO?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends how good they are, how comprehensive, and how much they are focused on the subject, but at a glance that certainly looks a lot better. Good work. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- thanks!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What WP:DRV is about

WP:DRV is not about whether you want it deleted or kept, it is about whether the admin followed procedures properly and this one didn't. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Clue trumps process always. Clue, Policy, Process, in more or less that order. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barber on Meta

Oh dear. If he was any more transparent he'd be a window. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What a twunt that guy is. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he's already added three new socks to the extensive list since that as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deathcamps.org

Uuh, there is something going terribly wrong here. And not only that the feelings at de: regarding dictatorship of enwiki are buildings up.

There may have been a lot of editing by the site owners recently, but it's my honest impression, that most links on de: and a significant share of here, where added by bona fide editors.

That would imply that the question of inclusion should be debated on the respective article discussion pages. And not unilaterally banned by technical means.

Pjacobi 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have commented over at de:, but the site owner was quite open about having added the links himself. We can work on this, though. Bed time for me, though. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

(cross post from User_talk:Atomaton) - Hello Guy. Atom seems to make some good points in his request for unblock. Could you please (a) carefully consider his request and (b) if you still think the block is valid, can you please provide more specifics as to what you view as the problem behavior? Thanks so much, Johntex\^talk 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He's been doing it for a long time. Time he stopped. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Time he got warned first, then - I'd say. You should at least be specific about why you blocked him. Johntex\^talk 08:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy, from over here it looks like Atomaton's been upholding consensus, not acting against it; the censors nominate an X-for-Deletion, consensus does not agree, the censors remove it anyway, Atomaton restores it. If that's an edit war, who's the aggressor? Atomaton's role has only been to uphold the consensus version; why not block the consensus violators instead? Conversely, if it has now become a blockable offense to uphold consensus, and we shouldn't do that any more, then all these policies and guidelines telling us to do exactly that should be revised first. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Guille

Here are some other articles you might consider deleting: Alex Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Max French, Jason Ouwendyk.

[edit] if someone should know about bad fath nominations its you

For the first you make like 20-30 bad faith nominations that dont even is done properly. so dont lecture me in what to do, in this case.--Matrix17 09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, bad faith means a nomination made to prove a point. None of my nominations are designed to prove a point. I nominate articles only if I believe they should not be on the project. And categorising the nominations is optional. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm longing for the day when Time Cube is gone...

I'd dearly love to nominate Time Cube for deletion, but after 4 AfD's I just don't dare. This article is just so bad. It is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. It's so long, it deals with the subject with detail and seriousness it doesn't deserve, and attracts all kind of weird editing... And there are of course no serious reliable sources -- of course, how can there be any? It should be cut down to the barest minimum, with all the "time cube claims" and "refutations" removed -- but then I would be accused of vandalism... Will Wikipedia become a list of all the crap that can be found out there on the internet? -- Ekjon Lok 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/z/g/User_talk%7EJzG_e089.html"

Categories: Wikipedia administrators | Discussion pages automatically archived by Werdnabot