User talk:JzG/Archive 27

Souveneiring

Hi, Guy. Please see my reply at Talk:35_mm_film#so-called_.22Souveneirng.22. jhawkinson (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

Hi, Guy. I think your revision to the lead satisfied my concerns. It's much better than the sentence that was replaced. Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Some good practice

Hi, and happy New Year! Just one quick thing - in an otherwise fair edit, you used rollback in a case where an explanation of the action was probably due. Your rationale on the TfD was good, but please keep in mind that rollbacks are like slaps in the face when used against established editors - in this case it would have been prudent to use the non-admin undo function instead so that you could leave a summary, especially given that you !voted in the TfD in a manner opposing the user you reverted.

See ye not, Courtesy
Is the true Alchemy,
Turning to gold all it touches and tries?

— George Meredith

Respectfully yours, Nihiltres^{t.l} 14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I clicked the admin rollback instead of the Twinkle one, but no biggie I think - we're going to hand out rollback to non-admins, after all. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing a protected page

Did you have consensus from us all at cold fusion to keep editing the article after it was protected? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I made an edit correcting an unambiguous error of fact and explained it on the talk page. This is permitted. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No you didn't. JzG, I respect you in a lot of instances, but avoiding changes of protected pages is not your strong suit. This was not an unambiguous error; it was clearly a change to avoid "the wrong version". Please revert yourself; I will probably take this to ANI otherwise. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• The citation says "see the 2004 DOE conclusion", but the text was not from the conclusion. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake from whoever inserted the text. It's an unambiguous factual error. The text was in quotes, linked as the "2004 DoE conclusion", but the quoted text was from the response to Charge Element 3, not from the conclusion. The sense is similar except that the Charge Element 3 response is more limited:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions."

versus

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

Here's the source itself: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf

Unless you're suggesting that the original editor deliberately falsified the source, which I hope they did not, whoever it was, then it's a simple correction of an unambiguous error of fact, quoting the wrong paragraph. Easy mistake to make, not at all controversial to fix, I'd have thought. It's not article text, even, it's the summary description of the cited source. If the editor meant to cite it differently I'm sure they will pipe up. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion takes place at Talk:Cold fusion, or is at least copied over there. Carcharoth (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already there - in fact, I noted the correction there immediately I made it. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem fair for an admin to (1) protect a page he had been editing and (2) keep editing that page. Unless you were asked by a consensus of other contributors to make a specific change. It seems rather that you were taking part in a revert war, and that one of your reversions was part of the reason Doc Glasgow protected the page.

Please self-revert, to show your good faith. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JzG. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

abuse of power

I am notifying you per due process that your protection of the Condensed matter nuclear science page represents a violation of the page protection policy on two counts:

• Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in.
• During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

Please correct this and avoid doing it again in the future. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have not responded or taken any action on this issue, I have posted a notice of it on the administrators' notice board: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JzG_misuse_of_page_protection. Kevin Baas^talk 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you serious? I don't see any issue with his edit to that page. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the wrong article. Notice the redirect. And refer to my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JzG_misuse_of_page_protection. Kevin Baas^talk 19:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, was it really so very very urgent that it demanded a response within an hour? I was visiting my father in hospital, I hope that's OK with you? Guy (Help!) 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP's user contribution logs, I posted the message on your talk page at 2008-01-01T12:33:56, and posted the notice on the noticeboard at 2008-01-01T13:30:48. In the meantime, you found the time to make these two edits: [1] [2]. I have a hard time believing that you were visiting your father in the hospital during this time. There was a clear half an hour between when i notified you and when a posted the notice on the noticeboard when you were actively editing wikipedia. It would have only taken a few seconds to leave a brief note on my or your talk page, or simply to right the wrong. Kevin Baas^talk 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let me see, what have I done in real life today? Seen in the New Year, talked with my mother and my sister who's up from Wales with her four kids and two stepchildren, investigated the ice-rink for my kids, visited Dad in the high dependency unit, driven 50 miles home, eaten some of course. You;re right, it may not have been while I was at the hospital, it could have been while I was doing something else. Point remains: very short timescale. And assume bad faith and extrapolate from there. Happy New Year, Kevin, and thank you for your concern. Oh, you didn't express any. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry. I made an effort to wait and make sure that you had been online long enough to see the message and respond to it. I felt that you were ignoring it. And I felt that I was pretty clear about what was wrong. It made me pretty angry when I saw that you reverted and then protected. Not only because that's unfair to other users, but because I know that that's a violation of policy for the reasons I stated. If you reverted and that's all, it would have been fine. And maybe another administrator would have come in and protected it on whatever version it was on at the time, which might have been yours, and that would have been fine with me. But instead you used your admin power where you shouldn't have, and after i pointed it out to you, assuming it was just a mistake, you didn't even express any concern or make any effort to fix it. You still haven't expressed any concern about it. And I haven't seen you make any effort to meet my concern, or the concern of the other contributors involved. So you see that's where I'm coming from. I'm sorry about this whole mess and I can imagine it's upsetting and stressful. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you made no real effort. But it's OK, I can be impatient and get trivial Wikipedia things out of proportion too. And now I'd be grateful if you'd just drop it, because I have to say that your comment on ANI made me very angry, and I do not like myself when I am angry. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear about your father, Guy. Best wishes in the New Year. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I really thought he was going to die at one point, you never want to see your loved ones on a ventilator and it brought back horrible memories of Laura, but it seems he's on the mend now, at least enough to be a pain to the nurses, which they say is a good sign. Poor old sod, life's very unfair sometimes. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You're in our thoughts. (I gather we're both part of the sandwich generation.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's the generation that pays for both our pensions and our parents', and will have to live on sandwiches in the unlikely event we can ever afford to retire, right? Guy (Help!) 23:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Best wishes. El_C 01:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah. Me too. Hope things get better. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had a family member in hospital. I'm happy to withdraw the ANI and tickle you with a large wet trout instead. Peace? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Peace is good, Ed. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nrswanson comments

Thanks for your helpful comments on User talk:Nrswanson. I'm getting past the need to see this editor banned, but I doubt I have the skills to encourage this editor to contribute less disruptively. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement report

I'd appreciate a formal statement as to under what circumstances you would block Giovanni for reverting again - otherwise he won't change his behaviour. Also would you revert his reversion? He might see a block as being worth getting the page the way he wants it. John Smith's (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR case over Debt-based monetary system

Please see this. [3]

You've taken a look at the article and were helpful in taking care of Karmaisking. Now, a group of people sympathetic to Karma is preventing any removal of his vandalism.

I'd appreciate it if you could comment on the arbitration case, if it comes to that, and just help out with the article, period. Zenwhat (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note also that an edit you dispute is absolutely not vandalism, as you characterised it. To describe another editor's good faith edits as vandalism is incivil and not acceptable. Please discuss disputed changed on the article's discussion page. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG, you're an admin so you know more than me. Perhaps my understanding of policy is flawed.

The overwhelming majority of that article's content was put there by Karmaisking, as vandalism. Now, if a person stands in the way of removing that vandalism, they are in effect promoting bad faith edits even with good faith.

Given the fact that the talkpage mob there is Libertarian, when I see sentences in the article like this [4]:

Libertarians plan a return to genuine free markets, small government and sound money backed by a gold standard or silver standard, as originally contemplated by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution.

I see no problem in completely re-writing the article, per WP:IAR. Zenwhat (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, not vandalism, but very likely advancing an agenda (aka POV-pushing). The text is POV and of no evident encyclopaedic merit, but it's not vandalism. And the more patient and polite you are with them, the easier it is to spot the bad guys and deal with them. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. Zenwhat (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Guy, happy new year! You left a message on my talk page, [5] and just wanted to let you know I replied. Thanks. Buzybeez (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Et tu?

Hmm, to hear from you too "Something with a citation is not OR" ([6]) was a bit disappointing. From a long-serving admin I'd have expected a deeper understanding of WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. I've still not heard any good explanation how those passages do not fall foul of that rule, something that still seems just plain obvious as daylight to me. Can you explain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/diplomamills/accreditation.html

[..] Some employers, institutions, and licensing boards only recognize degrees earned from institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. [..]
Remember:
In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency.

Seemed unambiguous to me, but I know from personal experience handling their complaints to OTRS that the PR departments of many diploma mills will be delighted to see the back of that template, they really hate it. And the thing that really gets my goat is that the deletion debate was started on the talk page of Louisiana Baptist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), probably the most persistently astroturfed diploma mill on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tribute

I don't know all the awards and barnstars, but I want to take a moment and compliment and thank you. Your tireless fighting for rational thinking and high standards on a number of controversial science articles, as well as hard work project wide. Although it seems that small cabals in walled gardens conspire against you at every turn, many recognize your labors. Further, I was significantly dismayed to see your family leveraged against you on AN/I, and send well-wishings on that matter. Thanks for what you do here, and keep it up. (if you can find a barnstar for this, feel free to substitute.) ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

electric bikes

• about 3 years ago you said something like that about electric bicycles... now there are patents, 500 thousands + of google hits [7] and 500 or more hits just in Ottawa [8]... books, seminars, etc... or maybe I'm off topic again? Happy New Year and good luck with your singing! --CyclePat (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pat, that is complete bollocks and you know it. There was a deletion debate, it decided to merge to motorized bicycle, and you spent months trying to force it back the other way. I know full well how many electric bikes there are, and unlike you I am not selling them, so if I were you I would never mention that ever again, OK? Guy (Help!) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay! Sorry. I think I was off-topic and making a bad comparison. I won't mention that again. However, I will inform you that I have secretly been working on content forking the article. I believe I will soon have more than 160 kb to create a respectful article on electric bicycles alone. Cheers! --CyclePat (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pat, there are six million editors registered on Wikipedia. 5,999,999 of them have no history of trying to fork electric bicycle and don't run companies selling electric bicycles. One, on the other hand, has that conflict of interest and has that history, and of the six million, that one is uniquely the worst possible candidate to fork the article. I really was beginning to hope that you had learned your lesson, but it appears not. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Strangeness

Why would you revert somebody else's comment on my talk page? { Ben S. Nelson } 01:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It may very well be true that he was canvassing, inappropriately. And perhaps they have a history of bad faith edits. Perhaps you might, then, want to take some kind of action against the individual.

But whether or not their comments belong on my talk page is a decision that is up to me. I will not tolerate censorship in personal communications, even (and especially) if those communications happen to be publicly visible. Please refrain from doing it again. { Ben S. Nelson } 02:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Panetics

As you're usually pretty good at judging whether pseudoscience and psuedoreligion articles are potentially valid, or too far out on the WP:FRINGE, could you cast a second pair of eyes over Panetics? This looks to me like the Happy Shopper equivalent of Scientology (the organisation's website is just as ramblingly loopy as the article, if slightly better formatted), but it does have references of sorts and the organisation has some reasonably respectable looking names as members according to their site. I'm reluctant to AfD something if it is a notable movement and I'm just being sidetracked by the page's (undisputed) need for a severe cleanup; have you any thoughts on the matter? — iridescent 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh wow, that is spectacularly loopy. 933 Google hits, of which a couple of hundred are unique, nothing on GNews, a few on Google Scholar but most seem to be completely off the wall. As far as I can tell this is an idea that has virtually zero currency outside of its inventor, R. G. H. Siu. Wherever did you find it? Guy (Help!) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Came up in a batch of Newpages I was AWB-spellchecking in the background whilst writing the earthshaking and immensely interesting Hammerton's Ferry, and it seems to have got even less coherent since I put the {{cleanup}} on it. While I think at least lip-service to WP:AGF is still A Good Thing, the creator's userpage sets off pretty much every warning light I can think of. (The earlier deleted version of the article was even loopier, incidentally.) — iridescent 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, and it's been userfied from mainspace as well. 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In my darker moments, I wonder if it might be best to let an atrociously written article on a fringe topic stand as-is. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In my darker moments I think that quite large numbers of people have already done just that. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

QW

JzG, this sentence:

"Actually the best for all concerned is probably to go away and never come back, leaving the article to a new community of editors; there does not seem to be anyone here who is not deeply invested in either rubbishing or defending Quackwatch."

was attributed to you. I've lost my temper a couple times at QW:talk -- I'm relatively new but it's a horrendous quagmire -- but I purport to be invested neither in rubbishing nor defending. Pete St.John (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Consider yourself the first of the new community, then :-) Guy (Help!) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I did, for about a day. Got a barnstar (on my talk page). Then ANI were organized and the armistice went out the window, both sides are annoyed with me, mostly the pro-science side (very annoying), and I've given up hope of ever moving the barnstar to my user page. Right now my only effect is in demonstrating the existence of somebody who is not anti-science permitting criticism of QW, and that seems possible because folks who may speak broadly of anti-science mobs also seem willing to exclude me specifically from those mobs. Pete St.John (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch 2

I wish I could express myself as succinctly and as clearly as you do. Your comment exactly captures my thinking - except that I needed 250 words to do it in. *sigh* Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• To be fair, my comment was essentially "wot Spartaz said", so your 250 words enabled my brevity :-) Guy (Help!) 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

PDMA (your favorite organization)

Hello JzG. You're the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product Development and Management Association. I added a note to the AfD asking whether a participant can ask for a re-list (for another five days). User:Davolson has agreed to work with me to find more sources for the article. I'm hoping to remove everything that doesn't come from a reliable source, except trivial things like the founding date, and maybe a few internal things that aren't very important. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See my new (less promotional) version of the article at Product Development and Management Association. Is this enough better to persuade you to withdraw your AfD nomination? EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately JzG doesn't need to, as the AfD has fortunately been rejected. Thanks for your proactive work, Ed. --Davolson (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fetus

Hi. Several people are insisting that a fetus has gills and/or a tail, and they are saying that drawings of a human fetus will not be acceptable in this article unless the drawings show gills and a tail. In reply to them, I cited authoritative texts that say a human fetus has no gills, and has no tail, and I have provided links to six different medically-approved images of an 8-week fetus that show no gills and no tail. What would you suggest in a situation like this? If I simply reinsert the drawings that were there for months, they will probably be deleted again. If I start an RfC, it seems possible that more people will show up with demands that we show a fetal tail and/or fetal gills. Would you kindly consider this predicament, and suggest a way out of it? I would be very grateful.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Leave it to others to reinsert the drawings or not. The world continues to turn, absence of the images does not materially affect the neutrality of the article, so there is no need to try to force matters. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Omission can affect neutrality of an article. There would not be objections to these accurate images unless they were believed to have a significant impact. I will not reinsert the images, as you advise. But I am disappointed that a few editors can so easily slant this type of article (and subject people like me to an endless stream of accusations and proceedings).Ferrylodge (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Omission of an image? I don't think so. Not in this case, not significantly. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I recently urged delisting of the abortion article as a "good article." One of the reasons for delisting is that images of women are shown, but virtually no description or images of what will be aborted. The average abortion occurs around the beginning of the fetal stage. By keeping accurate fetal images out of the fetus article, it's virtually guaranteed that such images will not be put into the abortion article either. And all because a fetus does not have the gills and tail that some would like it to have. Anyway, thanks again for your advice, which I intend to follow in this instance.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talking to the wrong man. I think GA is arbitrary and far too easy to game, I ignore it. On the other hand, the pro-lifers have tried long and hard to get the images into that article, with no success, and it was made a GA anyway, so perhaps the consensus is that it's not a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the consensus is to suppress relevant, notable, accurate, neutral information.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps your POV is away from the centre of mass. Oh, hey, it is! Well that's all explained then. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to have an article that does not reflect POV? I think so. In such an article there would be no suppression of relevant, notable, accurate, neutral information. An outrageous concept, I know.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you've gone and used the word suppression, which is one of my top ten flag words for frustrated POV-pushing. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a nice day, Guy. And a nice Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Musical notes

You might care to get out your books once again and contribute to the discussion of F-flat (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

About Chocolate Thai

I posted on ANI about the fringe nonsense regarding cannabis-related articles, such as on Chocolate Thai, and you responded.

User:Pundit, who is an administrator on Polish Wikipedia, has been making some pretty absurd arguments that the magazine, "Cannabis Culture" should be considered a reliable source. Finally, after I demonstrated about a dozen inaccuracies of the magazine, I think she subtly conceded that it's not a reliable source and said that her sources just prove the existence of a "popular colloquial term" -- A criticism I had made at the outset, that Chocolate Thai is just a "slang term" with no basis in botany and as such, should be deleted.

I'm amazed because despite the fact that she's an administrator (on Polish wikipedia, not this one), she seems to have a complete misunderstanding of what WP:RS and WP:FRINGE mean. Normally, I wouldn't pester an administrator like you with asking for a third opinion, but since she's an administrator herself, I thought it was warranted. After all, if she misunderstands Wikipedia policy on English Wikipedia, it could compromise her rulings on Polish Wikipedia.

Please see our discussion here: User_talk:Pundit#Chocolate_Thai. Zenwhat (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While also inviting to carefully read through our user pages, I believe your comment in the current RfC may be more useful - I summarized our doubts there, and going through the whole discussion on whether Cannabis Culture should be perceived as not credible, based on their misrepresentation of haiku verse (pointed out by Zenwhat) or because they wrote that Buddhist monks smoked marijuana (a claim that is probably an urban legend, but still surprisingly well documented in acceptable sources) are not of the major importance. All comes down to deciding if in the very niche and subcultural topics like cannabis strains we are to rely on pop-cultural niche magazines, even if they are notable in their niche, but still generally far from the typical source we use and dangerously close to fanzine.

Per colloquial to slang - I have raised no objections to such a change, I actually believe it better represents what the term is. Pundit|utter 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

requesting overview of my behaviour

Hello Guy, I'm requesting an overview of my behaviour in a dispute. You are the second sysop I've contacted about this. User:Blackworm accused me of making personal attacks last night.[9] I asked Jehochman to overview, he endorsed my response to Blackworm, saying Balckworm's comments were flame bait[10]. Blackworm he accused Wikiproject gender studies project of being "a collective of pro-feminist editors"[11]. The whole conversation is here

The issue is a rather sprawling dispute that Blackworm was having with User:Phyesalis which has spilled out on to at least 3 pages (Circumcision, Female genital cutting, Reproductive rights). A day after Phyesalis joined Wikiproject gender studies he made the flame baiting comment to its talk page.

Although Jehochman reviewed my comments Blackworm is insisting on rehashing the issue again.[12] I asked Jehochman for a second look - but he advised that since he will be out to ask someone else. I'm sorry if this request is a burden.

User:Pigman, who was asked for an outside opinion on the Reproductive rights dispute by Phyesalis but on my advice, brought Blackworm to WP:AN for making tendentious assumptions of bad faith. See that here

I would also draw your attention to his posts to Talk:Fathers' rights movement‎ although not involved in the reproductive rights issue this demonstrates a lack of AGF in dealing with me. He speculates that I am attempting to trade-off sources in a pov-push[13]. When I am not involved in that at all. I pointed out his narrow reading of WP:RS in regard to publications by experts and the use of relevant primary sources (see full discussion here). This user has an issue as can be seen by his latest revision of his userspace[14]. He says that men are being discriminated against on WP, in case you don't know, I am a man and I am probably the most active member of WP:GS and writer at Feminism. It's also worth mentioning the fact that out of the 5 users who responded to Blackworm on WT:GS, only one (futurebird) is female.

I would appreciate your objective view of my behaviour, especially in regard to his last post to my talk page. I'm not asking you to intervene, unless you feel compelled to, nor am I asking for your support. I am taking, what I consider a break from WP, at the moment due to this issue. I am preparing a report for ANI on this issue, its scope and its history here. I'd be much obliged if you could overview my behaviour in this issue.--Cailil ^talk 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First Edit

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing JzG/Archive 27 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

--  Idontknow610  (WANNA SIGN??) 10:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Email

Hi, Guy, I've sent an email with a very rough draft of info you might find useful – dave souza, talk 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

question

I Know you were involed in an earlier afd, any thoughts on this?--Hu12 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

More help needed

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist ScienceApologist (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

Glad

Glad to see you are back from retirement! Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I see you have requested nl:Aaron C. Donahue to be deleted. I sympathize with your plight, but I think we cannot allow other wikipedia's to excert this kind of influence, because it will make the kind of harassment you are apparently subjected to more effective. Let me just state for the record: JzG has no influence on what's going on on the dutch wikipedia. Good luck, JzG, I hope everything will work out for you. Regards. — Zanaq (?) 10:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with the harassment, the problem is lack of notability, advertising and the article being an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, glad to hear it. The given reason for deletion was harassment, but after I closed that request it has been nominated again for being unverifiable, which is a valid reason for deletion on the dutch wikipedia. — Zanaq (?) 10:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I nominated the article again reason : not encyclopedic. Sorry if I was not so clear on nl:wiki yesterday. Aleichem (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:profg

I'm not a big fan of this user, and he was blocked. User:B in an amazing abuse of his admin powers, reversed the block. I would like to see profg permanently blocked based on this podcast. At about the last 5% of the episode, profg (aka Bill Greene) is asking his meatpuppets to attack Intelligent design and Evolution with edits that meet his POV. I think he needs to go permanently. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate that you don't think ID creationism is a problem in Britain, but there are some university lecturers pushing it, and my son who's at uni met some other students enthusing about it (not doing the same course, but doing Physics or Astronomy). The Channel 4 programme The Root of All Evil?#Sectarian education showed creationism being taught in British schools, possibly that's been cut back in state schools with recent guidance as shown at Intelligent design#Europe, but there are still going to be private "faith schools" teaching it. A minority here, but the US has a large number of schools where evolution isn't taught because of religious objections,[15] and active publicity and political lobbying trying to put religion on a par with science in school classes.[16] The National Academy of Sciences’ new book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism devotes several pages to debunking ID creationism,[17] that's like the Royal Society finding it necessary to produce a science book for schools covering these religious aspects. .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See Truth in Science for a British lobbying group trying to get creationism into British school science classes, and British Centre for Science Education for the British lobbying group trying to stop them. Also, there are many public schools in the US where evolution is not found in science classes, only creationism even if it is against the law. See Christine Comer for example. Texas, one of the states that sets textbook standards for the entire US is deciding on new textbook standards for science at the moment, and anyone who favors evolution is being fired or hushed up, while creationists are in positions of power. Florida is also revising its science standards and most of those on the board are creationists.--Filll (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also a huge and growing Islamic Creationist movement, with one of its loci in Turkey. See Harun Yahya, and this will undoubtedly have huge consequences for the UK given the demographics. Surveys of the UK public show a substantial and growing acceptance of things like young earth creationism among the UK public; I can find the study if you want (I think the BBC did it).--Filll (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have blocked Profg for a month. If at that time the canvassing continues, I will lengthen the block to indefinite. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Thank you, Guy. Your words meant a lot to me, particularly because they were unexpected. They will help me recover from this painful and troubling incident. Kind regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

• 
  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar: Thanks for helping to rid Wikipedia (once again!) of one of its worst pests. -- Fyslee / talk 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted Block of User:Vittala

I see that you have blocked User:Vittala. You have declared him/her to be a sock-puppet of me. THIS IS NOT TRUE! On what evidence do you base this claim? Did you check IP addresses? Did you try to find out where his/her account originates? I declare quite definitely that Vittala is a different individual, not connected with me or any organization I am part of in any way. You had no right to create this block. Rosencomet (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cold fusion

I have accepted the mediation case regarding Cold fusion. Can you provide a brief summary of your view points regarding the issue here? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and RTV

I see you restored User talk:ScienceApologist in order to keep its history public, which is fair. I've blanked his talk page (the next best thing, per RTV); would it be appropriate to protect it, or not? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now he's gone and added the "Tired" template himself. I gather that's an acknowledgment that he no longer wishes to vanish quite to the extent that he used to. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he's very pissed off and we should do what we can to help him be less pissed off. Venting your ire can be cathartic. I am in discussion by email, I do not think he is gone gone, but I think he's ready for a short period of stepping back. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest to him that a good stiff drink can help. But only the expensive stuff. (I'm not trying to be flippant, I want him back, but I know he needs a bit of stress-free browsing.) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism talk

I replied to you over at the talk page. I hope you'll consider what I'm suggesting, that the real goal is to convince the community, based on sound editorial judgment. More to the point, I wonder what you think of unprotecting the page? Is it ready? Are you willing to help build a consensus regarding that source? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

Still hope to meet up one day! Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Do you know where the discussion is that you refer to in this edit summary? [18] I don't see it in the VPP archives. The issue is that that change is beginning to gum of the work on policy pages, as naive editors don't realize that bold edits are perfectly fine (the wiki process is a foundation principle, after all). I wanted to see what had been discussed there, but I am also tempted to restore the previous version. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Pixelface (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Disambiguous Russell Bishop (disambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Russell Bishop (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Russell Bishop (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Russell Bishop (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Diff?

I'd appreciate a response here. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have demonstrated a vicious personal attack on me. I asked for a diff. Please provide me with one and consider removing your inappropriate attack from the Arb Enforcement page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Levine, is that from before JzG posted the "retired" notice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterStJohn (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, distracted IRL Pete St.John (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted the Arb Enf. request after SA left, came back, left again, came back and one of his first actions back was to vandalize my attempt to seek dispute resolution for an article in which I was otherwise not involved. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant, before JzG posted his retirement notice (at the top of this page). Pete St.John (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

After. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Tweety21

Is the matter still being dealt with by the WP:OFFICE, and as such, is it still a WP:OFFICE matter?? Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 10:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, it never was an office matter, that user is batshit insane and I've been awake for thirty hours on a SEV1 at work so I'm not even going to pretend to be diplomatic about it. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOPE

Policy proposal: WP:HOPE. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Undelete Diana Schaub

This request refers to a speedy deletion you finalized back in on June 15, 2007 (Diana Schaub CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance). She is a full professor at Loyola College in Maryland and on the President's Council on Bioethics. At the very least, I think this should have been an AfD; at most, I think this article would survive an AfD. I don't know what the state of the article was at the time (I just followed a redlink, thinking I would create the page, and noticed it had been deleted), so it may have been that there was nothing significant asserted, but I do think an article on her meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability and verifiability. RJC ^Talk 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're my hero

I wish I can start talking like this. I'm getting tired of the POV-pushers. I wish I could get away with it in the way that you can. When I fight back against the POV-warriors of the world, they just run to one of the various Wiki-whining boards like this. What is your secret. I'm getting frustrated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We could push for JzG as a Bureaucrat. Then he could sort out any rogue Admins too ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes because I am continually getting baited by the similar group of POV-bullshit artists. Then they go running to their usual group of A) Fellow POV-pushing admins, or B) Amateur Admins that wouldn't know WP:RS unless it hit them across their heads who place bogus-fucking warnings. I haven't been blocked yet, but I've been much more pointed with these POV-warriors than has SA. We need a definition of a POV-warrior, and it then becomes a blockable offense. Kind of like 3RR or such. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it takes lots of experience not merely in wikipedia but in life itself. Interesting POV warrior ideas, links in to SPAs too. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Something for the New Year...

A little...Something Rouge

I thought I'd get you something for the holidays, which I spotted in a shopping mall in downtown Tokyo. Hope you like strawberries. --Calton | Talk 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ha! Excellent. We should add that to WP:ROUGE along with my doctored picture of the Moulin Rouge :-) Guy (Help!) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

GIVE ME ONE CHANCE PLEASE

• JUST GIVE ME ONE CHANCE TO STRAIGHTEN UP AND CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT PLEASE. -- NATHAN EXPLOSION (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you'd already used up your one chance. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He did. Several times. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Just One Just One More Chance Please iAm Begging You. -- NATHAN EXPLOSION (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would humbly recommend against this request, considering he's trying to do the same on WikiCommons. As evidenced by his comments to me here, and the resulting consequences here and here. -Ebyabe (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see where his interests lie. If that helps the decision one way or the other. -Ebyabe (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)