The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.
For which I am grateful, I do take an interest in Christianity on WP, but consider myself so far short of an authority on anything of substance that I usually confine myself to trying to fix edit wars and other nonsense. Oh, wait - I have contributed to some articles on traditional British hymns such as Adeste Fideles and Cwm Rhondda, so maybe I might be of some use :-) - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:CyclePat and I have a bit of a chequered past, but he supported my RfA after initially opposing, and bought me a beer on the strength of it, which was big of him, so I've kept it here to show that sometimes when folks work at it they can get along :-) Pat, for the record, I am actually very toucched by this, it means a lot to me. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's Very Important Brew (W-VIB). I CyclePat award JzG with these Working Man's Beers, (which have images of Barnstar's at the bottom & are made of 100% recycled electrons.) Congratulations on your overwhelming votes on Rfa. Cheers. feel free to drink and wikify!
I'm reverting to your stub, by the way, which is what I should have done in the first place - well done, that was exactly right and it was my mistake going back to the wrong version. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That looks the best move. I'm busy this week, but I have access to the NewsBank newspaper archive and can try to get a more balanced picture. Re the "baddie" version: the individual items about litigation history and failed companies do check out, but the overall feel is still of bias by selection of negative material. As you say, litigation and having business ventures fail is par for the course on the newspaper publishing circuit, so I don't think he's as unique in that respect as painted. TR's version, OTOH, is certainly a whitewash for failing to mention that aspect at all. Tearlach 09:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree on both counts. Private companies are voluntarily wound up all the time, there is no indication that half of those closures are anything else, and I have a degree of sympathy for anyone who's had to pay £8,500 damages but many times that in legal fees to Carter-Fuck and Partners. He is probably just a wide-boy, not a crook ;-)
Which reminds me of another bit of subtle bias, the repeated use of "prosecuted", which is definitely a slur intended to foster the auru of criminality. Libel suits come under civil law, where the term isn't used. Tearlach 10:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. I've been keeping an eye, the POV pushers seem to be in abeyance at present, but I am ready to semi-protect or protect if necessary. Feel free to add a {disputed} tag if you want. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 10:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are rather a lot of slurs by association in the article as originally written, too. I'm not surprised the guy was a bit angry. --kingboyk 13:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Tom Rubython need to be semi-protected? It looks like it does. I'm happy to do it if you want. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK at present, I'm working with others to keep an eye on it. I did consider semi-protecting it but the anons are not doing anyhting at present. It may prove necessary, though. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JzG, can you please validate your additions to the Safe Speed article by providing citations for the evidence and research you refer to with regard to:
Damage caused in a collision increases with the difference in mass.
The change in fatality trend is largely not on roads where pedestrians are common.
Studies of injuries to elderly pedestrians show that SUVs are disproportionately dangerous to this group.
Thanks - De Facto 12:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember that now. Here's the deal: That was only my 756th edit, most of which had been to article space. I had just gotten into the new page patrol scene and was still in the cut and dry newbie wikilawyering phase. The situtation as it appears now is different than it ws earlier. He appears to be posting a bio now, which I believe should be, and if you check my contributions you will see I do, userfied. At the time of my comment, he was using Wikipedia to host the syllabus of his class at Tehran University. I can't give you a link as the page was deleted and not being an admin I don't have access to the logs. That wasn't really appropriate to userfy, IMO, but I also don't think it would have occurred to me to do so early in my interaction with Wikipedia.
I agree that there has been too much newbie biting recently and frequently add welcome notes when I come across unwelcomed users. I was recently involved in my own one man crusade to prevent a newbie forom being bitten too hard, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/REMAGINE. This was one of the worst cases I've seen, not necessarily because of what was sadi to them but because of the way they took it and how unwilling older editors were to look at it from their point of view. I am not quite sure yet where my niche of the encyclopedia is, but whenever the oppportunity arises I will join you in your crusade to userfy.
OK, sorry to have gone off on one. It's not a crusade really, I am just very thoroughlt persuaded by (as it turns out) your arguments at REMAGINE! My brain is going soft in my old age. To quote the prophet, "d'oh!" - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The speedy delete on this may be technically correct but I find it hard to believe it's the best solution for the author of 17 books. And you're quite right about not biting. Dlyons493Talk 19:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi is an autobiography as it stands, which is not unacceptable but it is poor. The argument at AfD re the major source being his own site is valid, and verification is always difficult with non-English-Language subjects. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what you're saying. If he does get in touch I'll certainly try to help. Dlyons493Talk 23:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an interest in epidemiology, or is this a hasty conclusion? Anycase, please have a look at epidemiology, as well as the WP:TIGERS at work on the talkpage. JFW | T@lk 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand where it was from until I re-read the book yesterday and it hit me. Nice obscure reference there. --Cyde Weys 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I don't have a dog in this race, but listing the names and number of Flight 11 victims doesn't seem to me to violate the guideline about WP not being a memorial. A comprehensive, verified list could be of historical value, especially to journalists.
I get the feeling that there's more to this AfD than meets the eye at first glance, but I can't figure out what. -Ikkyu2 04:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of WP:POINT behind it (someone wants to resurrect the list of voctims of 9/11), so it's a principle really. There is an established convention that we don't have lists with very large numbers of candidates, and lists of people where the vast majority will never have articles are also uncommon. It's an interesting philosophical point: the larger the disaster the longer the list, so it's perversely more likely that a list will slip by for some small incident than for something truly significant. For my money I don't really see what the list of names adds to our understanding of a given disaster. x people killed versus x people killed and these are their names seems to me to be venturing into cruft, and in a lot of cases people are afraid to speak out because it's a tragedy. One more reason why I don't think anything should be on the 'pedia until time has had a chance to put it in perspective. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 08:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I need a mildly more level-headed backup here. I'm being lambasted by the article's author that I'm a deletionista, biased and all the happy things, including that I'm incorrect in applying WP:WEB to a site and that refactoring what is becoming a lengthy discussion to the talk page. I've asked for proof of anything regarding WP:WEB, or any other policy, and despite attempts to be civil, he's leaving veiled personal attacks on me and (as usual) using deletionist in a perjorative sense. If you could offer any guidance on this, that'd be freakin' swell. Thanks. RasputinAXP talkcontribs 12:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to participate in the consensus vote on Kennel Club naming policy. Click here to participate--Esprit15d 21:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JzG -- could you please take a look at this problemdiff, diff, diff, before it gets out of hand once again? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to help.
I think your edit is a big improvement over the previous version (but could you please add the {{citation needed}} tag after the word "Trekkers" to invite other editors to add a reference if something is published in the future? It may also serve to help David improve his understanding of WP:NOR etc.)
Also thanks for weighing in on the warnings on David's Talk page. I hope he will take you seriously.
Any advice would be very welcome. I feel especially at a loss whether or not I should simply walk away from the four articles where David has added this. AvB ÷ talk 13:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. No, don't walk away - that is not the way forward. His comments about you are out of line to my reading, what you wrote on his talk page looks pretty moderate to me, but then I am not trying to push a strong opinion into a series of articles. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I hope this type of thing won't happen too often. I know I'll handle it somewhat differently next time. Perhaps David will too. I, for one, am learning a lot here on Wikipedia. AvB ÷ talk 13:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 such verses:
from the article motorized bicycle you recently removed my OGG video with the explanation of "vanity". you detailed explanation would now be appreciated in regards to:
Power-assisted bicycle.
A power on demand, power-assisted bicycle, 2005 model, Velosport Blast (Prototype #2) from CyclePat's Electric Motor Assisted Bikes
"From CyclePat's". Also, per policy, we do not link to resources requiring external players (with PDFs being a grey area). Incidentally, those redlinks are still red. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HUh? What Pdf? You should know by cliking the little info media help, beside the video you'll be directed on how you can watch that video. Wikipedia encourages the use of OGG video format and suggests it to be the only format we should use for video files. Now what's this red link stuf? --CyclePat 22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, apparently. Links to media requiring external players are deprecated (I only found that out by accident). Oh, incidentally - an article does not become {{disputed}} simply because it does not include everything you want it to include. The disputed tag is for articles where there is reasonable grounds to dispute the accuracy of the contents. That very clearly does not apply to motorized bicycle, especially since 100% of all disputes stem from a single user. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 13:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sugest you familiarized yourself with meta-wiki video policy. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Video_policy and instead or removing something that seem useless because of your inability to be able to open the file, that you ask for help on how to open the file next time. Here is an external link for a program that a MAC user may use http://www.videolan.org/ and here is the previous link. http://www.theora.org/. p.s.: Your fucking pompous attitude of resiting the urge of asking a question from fear of looking stupid and seemingly embarrased is pissing me off, so smarten up and when you don't understand ask a fucking question instead of deleting something. That two time you delete that video. --CyclePat 13:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I originally removed it because I thought it was an external link requiring an external player (which is deprecated; seems I was wrong, it's on mediawiki), this time I removed it because two OGG players on the Mac refused to play it. In either case the fact that it's your bike makes your neutrality on its linking problematic. Contrary to your assumption I am neither ignorant nor too proud to look for help: the file simply does not work on this computer (which is not mine). Come back when you can be civil. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 13:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:AD. If you come across an article with an accuracy warning, please do the following:
don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it.
visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources. --72.57.8.215 18:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did verify it, and was unable to find any factual inaccuracies. Nor did you list them on the Talk page. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I've been on the sideline the last 2 1/2 months with the motorized bicycle stuff, but I think I'll hop back in so I can help out some. Does that work for you? :) What amazes me is that he's been on the site for 5 months and yet, he hasn't learned a darn thing about our policies. Nothing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could start by having a look at the video, I tried on my mum's OSX Mac and on my XP machine - it gave no video on the Max and crashed Media Player on the PC, but that could be the OGG extensions (although they work fine for other content). The copyright info makes it pretty plain that it's a promotional video for CyclePat's own homebrewed bike. Interesting, but not realy the thing for an article on the global history of motorized bicycles. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD? 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Some sage advice from a long term admin. Don't use your powers in situations that you are involved in. it's the only thing that can really get you into trouble as an admin. If you want to block someone that you are involved with, post it at WP:AN/I. If you want a page protected, post it at WP:RfPP. You're a new admin so I'm sure people will let it go by this time, but be careful with it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. FYI, a couple of us tried to clean up Choronzon (Band) which you voted to delete. It's seems more keepable to me now if you want to take another look... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know coming from me this will seem slightly hypocritical, BUT, is there any way you can shrink your sig? Just about every page I view it on your sig linewraps. Not to mention the fact that as an admin its going to start getting plastered all over wp that way :) ALKIVAR™ 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya but his sig is already all over the wiki, plus as it doesen't appear in articles its not really annoying, I say keep it (plus I'm British-Canadian so i'm partial to his sig. Mike(TC) 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... not sure how you found my discussion with CyclePat except by a little wikistalking... a SHORT comment from you on your perceived understanding of the problem may help. Dyslexic agnostic 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having posted to Pat's talk page, it is on my watchlist just like all the other talk pages I've posted to (including the ones I merged into my watchlist from my old account). There are over a hundred in all, maybe two hundred. And yes, I freely admit that when I saw "advocacy help" in the subject I was pretty confident that he would be trying to rope some other poor sap into his fight.
You want my short statement? Pat doesn't like the consensus view of this topic and is going to keep trying until he finds someone who will support him, a task in which he has thus far proven unsuccessful. If that sounds jaded it's because it is. If you ask Woohookitty and Katefan0 they'll likely give you much the same answer. Or for that matter you could read through the archives on talk:Motorized bicycle, or Pat's own talk archive.
I don't claim to be the world's best at dispute resolution, but you can see from here I am not generally considered to be a disruptive influence, and this shows that the community showed more than usual willingness to back me for adminship. You'll see from my contributions list and from my old account, that I am involved all over the place - articles on Robert Hooke, de Havilland and Handley Page, cycling of course, road safety, religion - and of course lots of vandal fighting and janitorial work. Pat is mainly involved in electric bikes and related issues (although he did try and preserve the article on what I guess is his school computer club when it was AfDd). Look at all the talk pages and other places he's been to to try and recruit help - apparently it's called forum shopping. Check his posts to the mopedarmy forum, and how he represented them on WP (posting a link to a reply halfway down a thread). I am absolutely up-front about my strong opinons on some subjects, but motorized bicycles is not one of them. Sift through the evidence and work out who is pushing a barrow here and who is trying to keep whom under control. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I just keep an eye on JzG's page and I know that CyclePat's bad news. RasputinAXP talkcontribs 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JzG. Thanks for your reply on AfD/Cake Prophecy. It reminded me of two things:
I've seen you advocate moving obviously nn autobiographies and pages like Cake Prophecy to user pages, but I'm not sure if you've actually done it. I've often suggested creators do it themselves prior to deletion, but I don't think anyone has ever taken my advice. I can't quite put my finger on it, but doing it for them seems wrong to me somehow, kind of like putting words in their mouth (even though they're their own words). Hmmn, that was a really poor argument. Forget I said anything.
Of course I wasn't referring to your nomination of Cake Prophecy with my criticism, but rather to the two "votes" below my own, but I have, for a while, found some of your other contributions at AfD pretty biting. Particularly some of your creative —cruft constructions, patently nn, and your use of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day; just because something is far afield from WP's notability standards doesn't mean their authors should be ridiculed. I know that's not your intention, but I imagine that authors often do read their AfD listings (even though they rarely participate), and I bet that what they find there often makes them angry or embarrassed enough to give-up on WP. I'm not suggesting that your posts are anything more than mild as biting goes, but since you have such a high profile on AfD, I wonder if many of the real offenders aren't imitating or taking reinforcement from you.
By the way, although I'm a bit further-up the inclusionist spectrum from you, I appreciate tremendously all the hard work you do, and I'm happy that you haven't lost any interest in AfD since becoming an admin. ×Meegs 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I have done this. When I see a nn-bio tag and the creator's username is similar to the article title it's my usual course of action; before I was an admin I used to do it and tag the redirect, now I do it and delete the redirect. And I very often notify them the article has been AfDd when I do that instead of deleting. I don't think others are taking much from me, I am a good deal more measured than many there anyway. But I will think about what you say, because I am quite keen not to WP:BITE. Except for spam and bandcruft... ;-) - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 23:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...well yeah, but they deserve it ;) Thanks for enduring my rant. And you're right, it's quite a reach to say that any one person can affect the culture of AfD as a whole merely by their own example. I'm extrapolating that mostly from what I can see within a single AfD discussion: a disrespectful nomination (or early "vote") tends to attract more of the same and worse. ×Meegs 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that may be confusing correlation with causation - blatant spam, for example, usually gets a rough ride on AfD. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 09:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is no way to prove causality under these conditions. I certainly am relying on my own judgments about various articles' worthiness-of-ridicule. ×Meegs 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the move to his userpage. Would it be appropriate for a non-admin to do that? --Mgreenbe 10:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone can do it. You move the article and then tag the redirect for speedy R2, with a comment that it's a redirect left over after userfying an autobiographical article. I used to do it myself when I was doing RC patrol. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would most vehemently challenge you on this point, my friend. The only mistake anyone in the project made was bringing it out prematurely. Other than that, I'd beg you find one single edit of anyone involved that was clueless/wrong. The way such projects are built is often from fumbling beginnings.
Please don't take this note the wrong way; this is not written in anger. I know you were saying this casually, and I'm certainly not saying it's wrong. I just need this expressed. My kind regards. --DanielCD 21:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Here's the comment in full:
We're getting a bit tired of the accusations of violating code, specifically WP:POINT. If you don't believe my word, I request to be either be brought up on charges or that people stop saying that. And I've admitted to being not only not smart enough to wait until the dust had settled but of not being smart enough to even know that there was (much) dust. What can I say? I get it, and in future I promise to try to spend more time paying attention to Wikipedia internal politics and less time on researching scholarly content, OK? Herostratus 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
My acceptance of your good faith was implicit (OK, perhaps it wasn't: I should have used since instead of if, sorry). As to the politics, well, yes, I see your point - I try not to get into the politicking, I thought it was kind of hard to miss on this one with so many of the user pages on my watch list lighting up, but of course that is distorted by my perspective as an admin and as a frequenter of AFD, DRV and of course AN/I so naturally it seemed plain to me and I can quite see how the world at large could easily remain in blissful ignorance of the whole thing (and be better off as a result, truth be known). So it wasn't personal. In fact, I think I have tidily demonstrated that absence of Clue is not restricted to the participants of this Wikiproject :-)
so, Herostratus said that it was created in ignorance of the ongoing debate, and I was saying that cluelessness was not only on his part and I was accusing myself of lacking clue here, not anyone else.... oh forget it, the hole I'm standing in is quite deep enough already. Go and look at Talk:Herostratus. You can have an apology too, if you want. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
God I'm an idiot lately. --DanielCD 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DanielCD and Just zis Guy, you know? : ) In a clumsy (and self-serving) attempt to distract DanielCD from over-musing about the PP, could both of you look at my comments on Graham Rix talk. Someone is trying to minimize my pov by calling me a moralizer. At least that's my take on the situation. What do you think of my response? I'm not incline to let comments like Calgacus's pass unanswered. Once I'm cast as an pov-pusher, my input will not be taken seriously. FloNight 22:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God yes, anything besides this... --DanielCD 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you run out of distractions there, Human still needs your help. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just zis Guy, you know?, thanks for adding a comment to Rix. Voting in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Proposed decision is slow but steady now. Taking a turn toward my choice, ban for Larvatus so article can be written. I was afraid that other editors were going to get wacked too. Looks like the tide is turning away from that outcome, thank goodness. Thanks again for giving Rix your attention. regards, --FloNight 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't want Felonious whacked over this, I am entirely convinced that we were all doing what we thought best for the project, no matter that we came to different conclusions. Plus, I get sucked in far too easily myself, so if Felonious is going to get his knuckles rapped it's only a matter of time before I'm in the same spot. It's easy to be wise after the event. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious... what's the problem with linking to the CMT page on Rhonda Vincent? Jim, K7JEB 02:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I notice you've been removing masses of links to cmt.com. Why are you doing this? This is a major country music media source. It has mini-bios of artists. In a number of cases, it serves as a signficant independent source of information for the article. As with imdb, just because something is heavily linked-to, doesn't mean its link spam. The link is not only useful to readers, but also fact checkers, who may not be familiar with an artist, and may wish to verify something. --Rob 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just added it back to Gretchen Wilson. There were previously only three external links from that page. One to the official site of the singer, one to a fan site, and the CMT link. The CMT link, which includes a bio, is the only independent external source linked to in the article. So, I can't understand how it could be removed. We can't have articles with no independent sources (the fact it was in the "External links" instead of "References" is a just a minor labelling issue, as its still a reference). --Rob 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CMT is the MTV for country music we get it up here in Canada. I think they should stay. Most likely it was a misunderstanding (you are british correct?) and most likely have never heard of it. Mike(TC) 04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous IP went through adding CMT links to a vast number of articles (over 100 I think), in each case disguised as "foo artist Music Videos". This included re-inserting links which had previously been removed from a number of them, usually with CMT in the previous link title. Not all of them were country artists, and even if they were I still read that as linkspamming (any mass inserion of links to a site lights up the old spam radar, y'know). I think if we link anywhere it should be to allmusic, since thaty is specifically listed in the criteria for inclusion at WP:NMG. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 09:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to allmusic is fine. But, WP:CITE requires us to use *multiple* reliable mainstream, respected sources. CMT is a national, reputable, widely known source (with American country music), which employs professional journalists. Allmusic doesn't always have a biography for every artist, and if it does, it may be POV (which is ok, but that's why we need balance). I think the problem here is your applying the "external link" rules, which favor "less", but I'm applying the "citation/referencing/verifiability" rules, which favor "more" (if reliable). IMO, WP:V trumps everything. As long as a source is important in verifying information in article, it should not be removed. So, the links should be re-added, though the display text needs to be made proper. Having lots of CMT links will be no more of a "spam" problem than that which we already have for imdb (and CMT is a more reliable source than imdb, for those it covers). --Rob 10:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing it, I'm just telling you why I did what I did. Anon IPs adding links to hundreds of articles is always going to attract spam watchers like me. And if the site is so very notable it invites the question of why it was not already cited on most of those articles and why it had apparently been previously removed from some. Links added by known and trusted users is somewhat different, and if there is consensus within a WikiProject to add links to a given site that makes a difference again. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 10:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help but notice your removal of the Salt Lake Tabernacle pipe organ - attributing the removal to LDSCruft. However, is it not the most famous pipe organ in the world? The one pipe organ that has been seen more than any other worldwide? To repeat what you removed...
[it] has been heard over the Music and the Spoken Word weekly radio broadcast since July 15, 1929 (it is the oldest continuous nationwide network broadcast in the United States of America). The show has been televised since the early 1960s and is currently broadcast worldwide through some 1,500 radio, television, and cable stations.
I would really like to see that pipe organ put back in the article. I don't see grounds for it's removal. If there is one notable pipe organ in the world, that is it. I think that removing it is more of a POV issue than leaving it there.
Bhludzin 05:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most famous organ in the world? I would say certainly not. The Albert Hall organ, the Wanamaker, the Arp Schnitger Orgel at Neuenfelde - these are famous. I am something of an organ buff and have not heard more than a few mentions of the Salt Lake organ. Just because it provides accompaniment for a well-known broadcast does not make it a famous organ, per se; notable, yes, but pre-eminent? Probably not, by my reading. Nothing wrong with having it in a list of notable pipe organs, though, it would certainly pass muster there. Feel free to start that list :-)
The organ of Kings College Cambridge may well be the most widely heard in the world, since Carols from Kings is broadcast worldwide including on the BBC World Service, which according to my information is the most listened-to radio service of all. But it's not especially notable as an organ. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 10:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the quotes make it clear that the phrase is a spoken part of the show and not written by the article's contributor. Therefore there was no need to explain what it was. I would argue that where it is heard within the programme is too much information for what is supposed to be a concise opening paragraph. Sorry I didn't explain it properly! Chris 42 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "too much information" when the topic is this important :o) - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your rever to the taint article. The reason I made these changes is that at some point some person had added each of these terms and rather than continue te revert them I thought it might be better to just add them into the article and be done with it. It also will keep any person from writing an article about those terms. Anyway if you want to revert it again okay I just thought I would explain it to you. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Googled them and got between zero and a couple of hundred, so they are to my eyes either neologisms or protologisms. On balance i think I will remove them again, although I now understand the apparent disjoint between the proper-editor-with-a-history and the crufty content, so thanks for the explanation. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine with me. I have no desire to get in an edit war over that article. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you mentioned in a comment (on Ruby's talk page), that PROD lacked a way to keep track of articles for which the tag had been removed but the article had not been AfD'd. It has one now: Ta Da!JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the greeting on my talkpage. Though I feel this may lead to petrol bombs, I feel I should mention that I once found Prof Wesseley's phone in the IOP canteen. In trying to find out whose phone it was I accidentally phoned the BBC's Greece correspondent, who has the same name as a post-doc in Psychological Medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry. Apart from his view on CFS, he is a very funny host of the Maudsley Debates, something which deserve an article of its own 1.) when I can be arsed, 2.) when I believe someone will help me. --PaulWicks 02:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JzG for seeing my point about the deletion of the Medal count pages that user CyclePat started. That's exactly what I said...that all that information is freely available on the internet! --Jared 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
This page is up for deletion. Please follow wiki policy rules. You have vandalized this page by removing the deletion tag. [1] --CyclePat 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be absurd. As I said on your Talk page, not only did you tag the wrong article, you tagged it for the wrong process. If you want me to help you fix it so it goes in the right process and you make a complete fool of yourself I'm quite happy to help, but I really thought you had more sense than that. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my comments to this issue on the deletion talk page. I know that I am supposed to add a delete to every article but really The easiest way to do it was to bring this entire issue up for discussion on afd. Now every article that does have a citation can be saved and those that don't will probably be, unfortunatelly, deleted. Sometimes the rules suck. But that's the rules. Perhaps it may be a good idea to move all of this over to wikisource. --CyclePat 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can be certain that every article in which that template is used does not cite sources, then the adding the uncited template to the years template is simply wrong. And I have to say that adding it to every individual article stands a strong chance of being interpreted as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Now, do you want me to fix the deletion request so it's in the right place, or do you want to drop it? Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what all the fuss is about; these pages shouldn't need proper citations because all of the information can be found on the internet. Most of these medals pages even have links to their official pages! So why should the pages be deleted? it makes no sense, especially when they are of such encyclopedic value! Please reconsider the deletion vote. --Jared 20:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is collateral damage from another fight altogether. It will be sorted out fairly shortly, don't worry. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 20:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it is! Thanks for stepping in, too. I couldn't have done it by myself. Haha. Plus, you're an admin and you know wiki better! --Jared 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some values of better ;-) - I do know Pat quite well, though. He usually calms down after a while. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good to know! --Jared 20:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and referenced the first 14 he listed. If you could help by referencing 10-15 of them I'd appreachate it. Just look at the page source of the ones i've done and its really easy, just have to change the year in the URL =).
It's typical Pat. He sees a new policy (for him) and uses it with no research at all. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Well I shouldn't even be talking. I'm not even an admin... I've only been editing for like 3 months but i know what I'm doing! --Jared 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an old saying: when your only tool is a hammer, every problem ends up looking like a nail. Pat extends that: now he has a hammer, a screwdriver and a spanner, he sees every problem as a screwboltnail[citation needed]. And don't get me started on how he identifies the so-called problems... Fortunately he usually calms down after a while[citation needed]. But he will never forget this[citation needed] - heaven help you if you fail to cite a single fact in any single article on the Olympics in future[citation needed] :-) Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 20:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, really. Some helpless kid is going to get yelled at for not citing the 2020 olympics page someday. haha. --Jared 20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the example of original research he used. He said if I state 2+2=4 it is original reasearch. It is not, however the proof for 2+2=4 would be original research . Mike(TC) 20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was good.... --Jared 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HAHA! HA! Very funny guys! Thank you for trying to help me out JzG. The only reason I'm not crying right now, or complaining more then the little blurb I added on Woohookitty's talk page is because I had a gut feeling it wouldn't be deleted. I really didn't want them to be deleted either. But when you read wiki policy there are some issues that need solving with the list of articles... Somehow I knew this was going to unavoidably come back and bite me in the ass. Fortunatley, It's not something that I am passionate about, unlike the motorized bicycles. One of the reasons I nominating this article is because I have decided it is time for me to move on to other articles for a little while. I had to do it. You know... If it breaks the rules it breaks the rules. We've technically made a quick exception to the WP:DP rule. I call it the common sense rule! (Unless it already exists) No matter the case... In my eyes after looking at many lists, reading through a few of the related talk pages I quickly noticed that the some facts where mistaken, some where arguable and all where practically uncited. <on the music of spider-man> SO... watch out... here comes the Citation Man!!!<end of music> Humm... My wiki sense are tingling! As for the deletion discussion. I though there might have been at least one suggestion (asides from mine) to transwiki to wiki-source but... nope. Meuh! Whatcha want? I added to the Template article's discussion page that the article was nominated and speedy kept. Now... I'm going to see if I can find some more articles that need mopping up... Unless of course you think I should take some time to help out with the reference citations with this issue? --CyclePat 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Pat, but I'm afraid you are the author of your own misfortune here. If you'd taken the trouble to understand my original message you would have realised that this was not just predictable but inevitable. I will say this as unambiguosly as I can: do not go on a citation rampage. If you do, the result will almost certainly be an RfC and quie likely a block per WP:POINT. It won't be me doing either (you know I have cut you a lot of slack in the past because I like you) but I can be pretty confident that's what will happen. Before you even think about adding the uncited tag, you need to check the Talk, page history, linked articles (is it cited in links on other linked articles?), Google (is it common knowledge) etc. If you start flagging numerous articles as uncited without doing these things first you will draw a lot of fire on yourself. If you do all these things and still find that the article needs citation, then go ahead. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you seem like an admin on here so i was wonderin if you could take a look at this very biased admin's history and talk page. his name is Jiang. thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freestyle.king (talk • contribs) 02:46, February 13, 2006
you will be banned for reference infringement[edit]
are you completely clueless? you can't leave my material up there and take out my references. it's one or the other bud.
if you keep putting my name on this, bud, you'll be reported more than you care to know[edit]
get a life, go play in a park or something, go read some IBM papers from 10 years back
I read them ten years ago, thanks. Play in a park? Not a bad idea: one park local to me has a velodrome, and I could use a bit of training, since my elder son is now starting to be able to give me a run for my money. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello : ) If you are around, could you give me a second opinion.
Earlier today, while welcoming newbies, I came accross a new account user Wannabebritney that looked like a vandal. (The name seemed s/w suspect, too.) [2]. I reverted and left a vandalism warning. Checking back later, I saw that the article Princeton Review had an Afd tag added by this editor. I reverted that edit too. The site went down again so I couldn't leave a warning. Looking at the edits now it appears Wannabebritney was trying to delete the article through Afd. Wannabebritney(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
I left comments on Wannabebritney talk page. Apologizing for reverting the edits but expressing concern that a new user's second edit to WP was the deletion of an 18 month old stable article. What should I do now? Re-apply the Afd tag? Does that make sense when the article is not really a good canidate for deletion? What would you do? FloNighttalk00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the AfD process was correctly initiated (i.e. listed and the debate article created) then re-insert the tag and it will probably be a speedy keep on AfD. Otherwise, ask the user what they were up to :-) Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 09:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the second opinion. You were right on. The Afd was speedy keep already. Nobody bothered to put the Afd tag back on, I suppose because it was so obvious. FloNighttalk 15:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Daisey, where you recently voiced an opinion. User:Calton has raised some significant objections, and I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind considering the ensuing discussion and changing or confirming your choice with respect to the article Mike Daisey. Sincerely ENCEPHALON 07:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Going back through the reverts on the KM article, I found this set of references which I feel was NPOV good and contributed by Dmezei, which you reverted as it was all getting started. I think that was a mistake; even if some of the other stuff was good editing on your part, those references he added seem very strong on first examination. I agree that the original 5 or 6 refs to two of his own papers were not Neutral POV, but the longer list from his edit there was much much stronger.
I can't see a legit reason why those should have been nuked, so I tend to think that your reverting there rather than discussing and counterediting other parts was probably provocative of the eventual more aggressive argument. Putting those back in would probably be a good start to really fixing things. Georgewilliamherbert 10:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the AfD discussion you'll see that quite a lot of the original article was seen as being original research. The editor complaining about the removal of the citations, is the editor who added them and is the author of the cited sources, which is also somewhat problematic, especially since these appear to be references to his website not to his published peer-reviewed work. I have no problem referencing things, but what was being removed was not just the refs, it was quite a bit of the content (and more cleanup needs to be done to avoid the originally cited problems of original research). My major problem was that the article as submitted to AfD was Don Mezei's view of Knowledge Management, rather than knowledge management per se. As you see from the reaction at AfD, Mezei seems to think he owns the text.
Just to be unambiguous, I have no problem with Mezei being cited as a source for the article, but as submitted to AfD it was made to look as if he is the pre-eminent authority, and his subsequent statements make it clear that (referenced or not) it is his personal essay on knowledge management, referencing his chosen sources. The view presented states as fact that KM uses a certain terminology: this is also not necessarily the case. Nor are links to an editor's own website and archived discussion group postings usually considered reliable sources. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't go back and read the specific edit I am referring to. That set of references was the longer, much wider reference list which his own writings didn't appear in.
I agree that the short, six or seven reference list which was mostly his own work was not NPOV. The longer one you nuked, was a good thing.
Regardless of the rest of what Don Mezei is doing, which I am not going to defend, that particular revert of yours wss a mistake IMHO and deleted useful content. As such, it was ultimately bad for WP, and probably egged him on to get unreasonable about what has followed. Please go back and re-read the history and see what you did there, the whole contents of the article you reverted in that instance, and in particular the detailed references list which wasn't just to his own work. Georgewilliamherbert 18:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
was my writing, yes. But now, the introductory definition is now terrible. Like I said, if anyone can do a better job, I would be the first to congratulate them. I was the first to tell Denham Gray on brint.com that his analogy for KID was great. Why? Because I know how hard it is to write one. The KM article has reverted to becoming one of those 'no one knows' what it is kind of subjects.
I knew going in that there would be people upset about all my references. And that's exactly what happened. So now, you want to leave all the material I wrote up, but take out the references to my ideas.
I would really appreciate if you would just start the article over from scratch, this is almost too strange for me to witness. I've notified Knowledgeboard.com what is happening here, and to remove the link they set up for me to wiki entry on KM.
Novelties like wikipedia are good for simple or well established ideas, but when it comes to creative thought or new ideas, wikipedia simply doesn't work. That's why wikipedia will never rise above being an average source to gather information. This KM article was the test, and sorry, but wikipedia has failed.
Your statement above says that the AfD nominator was right, and that it was original research. Your previous comments also suggest that you did not read the GFDL licensing model under which you contribute. Whether it sucks now or not I would not like to say - but I can be pretty confident that the judgment of those on AfD who said it had problems before is more likely to be neutral than your judgment as author, because in the end nobody can be neutral about their own work. It seems that you created a breaching experiment, and got the result you expected. Congratulations on proving your point. But if it hadn't been me who started to edit the article, it would have been somoene else - that is the nature of a Wiki, and I'd be astonished if mine were the last edits since I am under no illusions as to my abilities as an editor. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is that no one built upon the ideas I listed already there. Those were time tested ideas. Not spur of the moment ideas. Those ideas had gone through 4 years on brint.com, 2 years on knowledgeboard.com and countless discussions with other KM practioners.
It seems to me, and I predicted this, that wiki took offense to the fact I (as in one person, not some 'community') was putting up all these ideas, and using the best of the ones sourced from brint or Nonaka Takeuchi. I know Nonaka's book like a fine tooth comb. I know Jerry Porras and I've discussed KM with him in context to his book Built to Last. I've exchanged ideas on the meaning of quality with Robert Pirsig, who helped clarify some ideas in my unified theory. What I'm currently reading on the wiki KM introductory definition (the rest of the article is mostly mine, with a few really bad edits thrown in) are a bunch of seat-of-the-pants ideas about KM that are purely whimsical. I don't really care, but I don't want my ideas associated with those. Knowledgeboard set up a link to wiki specifically because I was editing the page, but that's going to be taken down now.
I have no interest in having my 'name' out there. It's already 'out there'. I was doing this as a service to wiki, that's all. I put my website up there so someone could source my references.
Seriously, I wish the wiki community all the best, just don't use my ideas. Use your own, but don't take mine and de-reference them and change them. Because then they don't make any sense. I'm trying to uphold wiki to a high standard here. That's the point. Isn't it obvious?
Seems to me that you are still labouring under a misconception. Any text added to a wiki by any editor is subject to editing by others, which may or may not include removal of any text, references, name-checks, weblinks or whatever. Unless you are asserting that your perspective on the subject is absolutely unique and cannot be separated from you yourself (in which case it would have no place here). Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless you are asserting that your perspective on the subject is absolutely unique and cannot be separated from you yourself (in which case it would have no place here)."
That's right, it has no place here. Now you're getting it. My perspective is unique, and of course, this notion of someone having a unique perspective is new to the annals of academic history.
That's what I've been saying all along, wikipedia will never rise above being an average site. It's a rehash of what's already out there. Never interested me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.51 (talk • contribs)
Obviously you don't understand the point of wikipedia. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. David D.(Talk) 16:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that Britannica is a rehash of what's already out there, yes. That's precisely what is meant by no original research, and by verifiability from reliable sources. But once something has been contributed, it is licensed per GFDL, and can be built up or pared down according to whatever individual editors think. It's not a bit like academic research. DavidD was about right :-) Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 16:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This peeked my interest enough to follow the KM stuff a bit. I'm not going to delve in further but is there a difference between KM and management consultants? It seems like another buisness management trick of repackaging the same old stuff. Or am i being too cynical here? David D.(Talk) 19:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes David, there is a difference. KM is a process that incorporates the desire to expand your range of inquiry with the need to simplify your options or decisions. So this expand/contract dichotomy is rolled out within an organization by balancing technologies with human initiative. The two have to complement one another in some kind of way, so that goals are always kept tightly focussed. Because with present day technology like the internet, it's easy to spread your learning, communication, research etc really thin. That's the whole point of KM, in an nutshell. It has nothing to do with management consulting. It's a science. DM
Thanks for the reply. So is it regarded as a new field or will it become a branch of economics? Actually economics does not seem to fit this area. It is definitely in the managment area, but a science? Economics of management? David D.(Talk) 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KM is far more than a type of consultancy. It became a buzzword about five or ten years ago, but the underlying processes of knowledge management have existed since well before it was ever called that. It's not a science, though, not in the formal sense: more of a black art :-) Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very new field. So new in fact, that km-forum.org (Bo Newman) was probably the first group that launched the modern discussion of km back in '96. KM is related to economics through the concept of intellectual capital (Karl Sveiby has done research into that area). It's a lot like black art, I'd liken it alchemy. But I think it's a science, and here's the equation:
KM = K + (I + D)
where I is to D as K is to (I + D)
There was an example I used with the alphabet and how data, info and knowledge (KID) can be derived from each other, and that's explained by the equation in some respects. There's a lot more to it, can't really get into it here. But the point being, we have to examine how we catagorize and communicate and manipulate ideas. The better we are at this kind of obscure understanding of 'meaning' itself, the economic boost this gives to our organization. I call it whole brain thinking. That's the end result.
Are you familiar with Tim FH Allen's work? He is a theoretical ecologist. His work sounds quite similar although i'm not sure he would label it as KM. His main thrust is "Narratives and Transdisciplines for a Post-Industrial World" David D.(Talk) 23:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Say I own a business that sells cardboard boxes. When I start managing my knowledge what percentage more cardboard boxes will I sell on average? :-) --Malthusian(talk) 23:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends if they're pizza boxes or shoe boxes.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with his Tim Allen's work. But it sounds interesting. The main connections I've seen with knowledge, info & data are these - that knowledge is Taoism, information is Rationalism, and data is Empiricism. The way they relate to each other is as follows:
taoism is yang + yin
rationalism is yang
empiricism is yin
So in the east, we have a form of unity similar to Nonaka/Takeuchi who see knowledge comprised as tacit (yin) and explicit (yang). While in the west, we have taken this unified principle of taoism and divided it up into empiricism (yin) and rationalism (yang). So that's the background behind KM theory, on a large scale.
Therefore if KM = K + (I + D)
then KM = taoism + (rationalism + empiricism)
that's why I is to D as K is to (I + D)
that, I believe, on a large scale, is how we manage and communicate thoughts, ideas etc. That covers cultural bounds etc. We substitute words like knowledge, information and data as representations. These words represent the underlying differences in our approach to the world as we know it. Data see empiricism as an understanding of nature from the outside in. Rationalism believes we create our own reality, and taoism is a combination of both.
but you seem a bit in over your head as an editor of KM. Before Brint changed their forum format it was the largest in the world, and Yogesh asked me be the editor for the forum, but I didn't have the time.
I'll be honest with you, I knew this whole KM wikipedia things was doomed to fail. Writing what KM actually is, when anyone can change it? heh heh
It proved useful in that I refined my KM definition because I knew there would be an audience, so it helped in that way. So in that way, I'm actually very happy about it.
Wikipedia needs to evolve. It's too stuck in the morass of the known.
Like I said before, you clearly have a very different view of what Wikipedia should be than the people who wrote the policies. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you would take a look at User:Paulo Fontaine's recent contributions and consider blocking him, especially for this edit, this edit, this one.... (I'm going to you because you have some experience with him, according to his talk page.)
Btw, belated congrats on your admin-hood! I'd always assumed you were already an admin. Consider the count a retroactive, unofficial 103 "support" votes. Cheers, JDoorjamTalk 16:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just told by an editor from wikipedia that 'wikipedia does not publish original ideas'. I kid you not. Please remove all references from Einstein, Galileo and Newton right away.
The policy is stated unambiguously at WP:NOR. No original research means that WP is not a publisher of first instance, or of original thought. Instead, we document what can be verified from reliably secondary sources. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guy--walk away. A terrier has got hold of your pant leg. Shake him off, for your own good. rodii
The problem with removing Einstein, Galileo and Newton is they published their work, their work has been peer reviewed, and accepted. Thereofre NOT original work. Its not original ideas, rather unpublished original work!. Mike(TC) 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So my website, or Brint.com, or my papers, they conveniently don't qualify as secondary sources. How many ways can you spin this? In my opinion, you're all just bugged that one person could publish so much material. That must be the case, because you de-reference everything I put up. Nazipedia.
From what I can see, none of you really have a clue about KM. So much so in fact, that there wouldn't be an article if you removed everything I posted up there. There would be just that lame KM definition, one of the many attempts to define KM that go no where. So the only thing right now that's making the km entry even worthy of a visit is what I've written. heh heh. That must just bug you to no end.
The only reason I even took on writing it was because, if you read the history of the entry, everyone was really dissatisfied with it. It was called 'unencylopedic', a really poor piece for a worldwide site etc. So, where were you with all your 10 year old IBM papers. Were you too busy to edit the entry?
"Sit back and have a look at the article, folks. it is in very poor shape."
"092605/SL - Kff, Banno, I am new to Wikipedia. I saw the KM page and thought - wow, for a global encylopedia this is a bad represenation of KM."
So I completely re-write it, which takes almost a month, people really like it, but lo and behold, they are POV's! POV's!! Ahhhhh. Delete. Let's go back to the crap. No, wait, we'll take out all references to the writer, BUT KEEP HIS MATERIAL. And if he doesn't like it, we'll ban him. Nazipedia.
D, you desparately need to walk away from Wikipedia for a couple of days at this point; the substantiative discussions about content will wait safely for being resolved later, and if you keep flaming people like this, you're going to get yourself blocked and guarantee you have no say in how the articles end up (or any others). Just walk away for a little while, calm down, and center yourself until it's not a personalized issue for you. Georgewilliamherbert 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the Help:Starting a new page helppage, others have gotten rid of the advice against autobiography which you added in December (according to the "Notability (people)" talk page). Would this still be useful and appropriate to include, as it seems to me? Barno 00:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate your feedback at User talk:Mwalcoff/Candidates and elections, my proposal to bring some order to the candidates situation. I plan to soon create sample articles to demonstrate what I mean on the page. Please let me know what you think on my talk page. Thanks -- Mwalcoff 05:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not know exactly what you want me to merge. Although I know how to do straightforward moves and what to avoid doing, this is the first of these history fixups I am involved in. I thought the admin would do a temporary delete while the admin patched up the history. Please let me know how to proceed. Chris the speller 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you sounded as if you knew. Easy enough:
tag target for deletion
once deleted, move source to target
get admin to undelete history of target
tag redirect at old source for deletion, or simply start new content there.
I think you missed my explanation at WP:SPLICE. It's still better than when you started with it, but this was a more complicated case than you imagined. Up to you whether to venture further. Thanks. Chris the speller 21:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! I like that "the classic more complicated case" :-)
ah, missread :) Thanks for moving it there. I was starting to edit the page today, and I read what you wrote under the soical heading The society organises the usual social functions of a university society, however, after a quick search around the wiki, i found there to be no informations on what 'usual social functions' are. How about a comprimise on the pubcrawl crap that was in the society page; i use it to illistrate what kind of functions a university society do organise, on a seperate article? Let me know what you think. Also, do you have access to the last version of the AUES page before it was removed? Could I have that put in my userspace, just for personal reference? cheers, Shenki 00:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl(talk)2006-02-16 11:17Z
Hi I need your advice on something. I've been watching for a while the article about a CEO I know half personally. Hes famous because of hurricane katrina, however there is a bit of confusion because the company he owns is quasi associated with a kenyan company that buys up expired domain names. No laws get broken, but in his article a group/individual keeps reposting a section about him that 1) isn't true and isnt backed up by anything except their own websites 2) is slanderous 3) is IMO extremely POV. Wondering if you could take a look and advice me on what I can do (ie remove the section or whatnot). The article is Sigmund Solares. Mike(TC) 02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frank.Feather 11:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)I understand what you mean. But if you read the item you will find it purely factual statements. But if that is your policy I will get somebody else to submit it. In that event, can you set it up as a stub? Thank you. Frank Feather[reply]
Frank.Feather 11:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)I have resubmitted the article. Purely factual. Please read it again, and advise. All the facts jive with what is in the public domain. All the books are listed at Amazon. If you need further third-party sources in the Reference section, I can provide them. I am not on some ego trip here; that's not me. I just would like to be listed along with my peers in the futures research field. Thanks for your consideration. Frank Feather[reply]
I am very disappointed that you chose to re-create Frank Feather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yourself, before I'd even got through typing my reply to your message. Even Jimbo Wales can't edit his own article without attracting adverse comment. What you are doing looks terribly like vanity, and I strongly urge you to leave these edits to neutral third parties. If you are as influential as you say you are, others will do it. I note that you have changed the attribution of at least one phrase to yourself, and claimed to have originated Thinking Globally, Acting Locally. Terms like "international business futurist" are weasel words which simply don't conform to policy. Please stop writing about yourself and leave it to others. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 12:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frank.Feather 13:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)I was offering you what I thought was a fair and verifiable version. I have no desire to impede on your edits. I was working on it at the same time as yourself. In any event, I respect your judgment and request that you now please delete my entire page. Thanks! Frank Feather[reply]
You can nominate it for deletion by adding {{prod|reason}} at the top of the article. I believe that you honestly did think it was fair and verifiable - and I also believe that the other editor who has disputed some of the facts is also adding what he believes to be fair and verifiable. Which is why we tend to discourage autobiography :-) Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 13:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frank.Feather 14:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Thank you! I have done so. I also deleted all but the first line. By the way, just so that you know, the guy from Sierra Club who you cited as having coined "TG,AL" -- that's the first I have ever heard of it coming from there. The closest prior version that I am aware of was "Act Local, Think Global" by Dubois. Certainly within the Futures Research community, it is generally agreed that I coined the phrase. It occurred in a brainstorming session for the theme of the conference. (The 6300 people in attendance from 54 countries took it and spread it into the vernacular.) Somebody mentioned Dubois's line and I said "That's it! But it's the wrong way round; and it needs to be more active." I then suggested Thinking and Acting and that became the theme of the conference and the book of papers for the conference. The only evidence for this rests in the ears/brains of those who were in attendance, plus the conference program (which I have a copy of, and could scan the cover as an image for the page; same for the book cover). As for my credentials in China, all I could offer is a Certificate of Appointment, in Chinese, with a Seal, provided by the Government (which again I could scan). But otherwise I don't know how it is possible to verify credentials of this nature. And, for sure, a person of ethics does not go around claiming something as a credential which is not true. I also think that words such as "international" ought to be valid. I could be a Canadian futurist (i.e., only known in Canada), for example. In fact, I do 95% of my work outside of Canada; indeed, the Canadian market is not big enough to rurvive as a futurist, LOL. Anyway, thank you for your time. Sorry to cause you aggravation and waste your time; I appreciate what you are doing at Wiki. That was not my intent. I was just trying to add a valid and fair entry. Thanks for being patient with my futile efforts. Cheers! Frank[reply]
I didn't cite it, it was FoE who gave that information. Whether it's verifiable or not I wouldn't like to say, but it's a credible claim and predates yours. It's credible because FoE have used the term ever since I can remember. It is the way of these things that they may often arrive simulotaneuously in more than one place - you have only to look at the feud between Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton to see how that can happen. But don't worry, this is all part of the service - I am trying not to make it too hard on you, and I'm sorry it has to be this way. If I did not think you were likely to be considered worthy of an article I'd simply have tagged the article for deletion myself (as I did with the similar case of Azamat Abdoullaev, it looks to me as if your published work establishes your reputation. I note you are contributing in other areas as well, and I hope you will continue to do so. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 14:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frank.Feather 14:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Thanks! I had another question. In the "Books" which I listed, I later added more complete publishing information for each one. I did this in an attempt to help verify credentials. But those details seem to have gone. What is the correct protocol for that? Frank[reply]
There is a template for adding book details called something like ISBN, but I can't remember exactly how it's used. If you click around a couple of authors you should soon find an example you can copy, otherwise it'll probably be in WP:TPL somewhere (you'll see why I can't remember them all!) Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 14:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you remember thislargely uneventful AfD. I came across it backtracking the contribs of an anon who kept making whitewashy edits to pages about high-profile conservatives. I had to laugh because I went to school with Ryan Horn. He's absolutely not notable enough to warrant his own article. I'm not leaving this message because anything needs to be done -- I think the AfD took the proper course of action -- but only because it's not every day you find someone you know in AfD (unless you constantly write articles about your friend), and you were marginally involved, and I had to tell somebody. Cheers, JDoorjamTalk 14:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JzG,
please could you have a look at the Deletion review page regarding plazoo. You made up your mind but regarding some strange findings
about "the war against blogrelated entries in wikipedia", i would like to ask you as an admin to mediate as i think you are
pretty neutral to this issue, although you have an opposite meaning about the deletion. I hope you agree that at least
some closer look to the AfD regarding the voters and their closeness to that "war" might be necessary...
T.Kik.
Comments made. Guy 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to retype that, but what the heck. (You think your typing is bad... I've been trying to work up my depression/ME into an excuse for mine – affects motor control, you know, ahem.) Anyway, are you at all interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science, you having some Robert Hooke reprints an' all? Just a thought from a passer by. JackyR 01:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting, I'll be over... Guy 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i noticed you removed my image at the top of my talk page titled jiang=shame. however the only reason i posted that image is because jiang posted a image on his talk page titled "taiwan=shame" which is a personal attack toward me. if you think my image is unhelpful, you should remove his image from his talk page as well. by the way, you shouldn't edit ppl's talk page. if you feel sum of the content is unhelpful, post a message and i will read it.
--Freestyle.king 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be very wary of interpreting that as a personal attack, the picture was from a news story as far as I can gather. It does not name you, whereas your banner did name Jiang. I don't think either of them are conducive to calm, so it would be better if you both removed them, but yours undoubtedly was personal whereas his was not necessarily so. And yes I should edit people's talk pages, see WP:RPA. You do not own your user or talk pages. Guy 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Not found" means that no posts by the suspected sockpuppet were found using the range of ips which the user suspected of using sockpuppets was using. Obviously they could be using the sockpuppet account on a different ip. However maintaining a bunch of isp accounts is expensive and confusing even to them so things get far fetched when you see posts coming in from a lot of isps. Who would spend that much time and effort just to mess with us? Fred Bauder 13:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Guy 13:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You think it's about time someone closed to DRV for that article? I seem to do most of the DRV closings these days, but if I do this one I'll be crucified (not that I'm not very tempted). Anyway the debates gone on for almost a week, and no one's adding anything to the dialogue. The process was already tainted when User:Docu spammed well over 20 users, telling them to vote to keep it (no such effort was made to keep it deleted). It's a mess. -R. fiend 17:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I'm off to choir practice now, I don't mind doing it when I get back. Guy 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you know it's quite easy: the article has been moved to project space, a fork has been created at Place names considered unusual, so the DRV is moot per status quo. Guy 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, is your new sig not supposed to be clickable from your talk page? rodii 21:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It only links to talk - links to the current url without internal links (#) do not render as links. Guy 22:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus. Now I know why it didn't work when I dressed up my signature. I never thought to wonder whether it was the software doing that, I just figured I had screwed up the code somehow. Now I feel dumb. *cries*
I like the new look, anyway. rodii 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It took me several minutes of puzzled source code analysis before I worked out what was going on :-) Guy 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of placing {{deletedpage}} on this page if it's not protected? --TML1988 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To warn people that it's been deleted and should not be re-created without good reason, but to allow them to re-create if good reason exists. If it is re-created with trivia again despite that, it might get protected, but right now I think the notice should be enough. Guy 11:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the old signature, sorry but its true!! Mike(TC) 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, perhaps slightly overboard on the minimalism. See how this works out. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just seeing if I can edit with my BlackBerry - seems I can! But no tilde character.
Wonder if you could create a template with the tidles and subst it? I am sure there would be somewhere in the blackberry to add tidles though. Oh the redid signature is awesome though. Mike(TC) 16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Identity crisis? 3 user names in one week! FloNighttalk 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, trying to reduce the size of the sig and still have it visible in long discussion threads. A tricky job! Still the same guy, mind :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like version two. It's bold! rodii 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, could you help out here? New user User:Kathychen has created an article that's pretty iffy wrt copyright. She's asking me for advice on how to proceed but I just don't feel like I'm enough of an expert on this. I don't want to just throw the copyvio flag--she seems like a good contributor. The initial discussion was at Help desk, but the article in question is Berman Bioethics and her comment on my talk page is here. Any advice appreciated. rodii 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your animus against this non-commercial site is a little bit disgusting and all too obvious. First you denote any link to it as "linkspam" because someone broke some unwritten rule about having "too many links" (whatever that means exactly, and in spite of the fact that all links were non-commercial and relevant), and then you blast it because Alexa didn't report a lot of traffic to it within DAYS AFTER IT CHANGED DOMAINS. Looks like that site didn't need Wikipedia after all:
-- which doesn't go to say that Wikipedia readers don't deserve to have links to information about the historical practices of the Church, and the practices of millions of traditional Catholics, people who are apparently hated by Anglicans. Your religious bigotry is showing and has been for a while now.
I see you are Anonymous again. Any site which links itself to 100+ articles is a link spammer in my book. I have given my reasons in full before now. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there aren't 100 links now (how many non-commercial, added-by-human-hands, relevant links to specific, relevant pages on relevant entries is too many again?). In fact, there isn't even one, as far as I know, so what is the problem? When are you going to stop deleting any and all links to a traditional Catholic site -- one whose present Alexa report blows your "nevermind the Christmastime domain name change, it OBVIOUSLY gets all its traffic from Wiki" theory out of the water -- just because of your false categorization thereof? How much of your malfunction in this regard is a result of ego, how much is a product of your anti-Rome Anglicanism, and how much is a matter of too many falls from your bicycle? Especially given Google's ranking of Wiki pages, your "linkspam" routine is libelous.
Who says I think anything would actually help the "case"? The power-mad can't be reasoned with. Now, what is the reason for pointing out the page on "Legal Threats", a page that encourages editors to set up other pages to complain about each other endlessly while nothing gets resolved and policies still aren't clarified? What good are "Requests for Comment" pages that turn into gangbangs when the one guy who has no life outside of Wiki gets all his pixel friends to pile on against the editor whose friends are real? "Requests for Arbitration" are the same; the administrators know one another, and if one doesn't like you, they all don't like you. And as for "personal attacks," read how you've characterized the site you've labelled "linkspam," hypocrite.
I'm still waiting for the bit where you explain how personal attacks are going to help here. For your info I had never heard of Dominick before that RfC and rarely encounter him in Wiki-space even now, this has nothing to do with RfCs. Just zis Guy you know? 10:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're waiting on such a thing because I just got done saying that "I don't think anything would actually help the 'case'". If you want to apologize and restore links to the pages you said you would allow in your benevolent magnificence, then fine, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to admit being wrong or to live up to your word. As to Dominick, he has nothing to do with anything I've said as he is not an admin. Besides which, anyone who thinks it a favor that you deleted comments meant to bring his attention the fact that he admits making non-factual pronouncements (from Dominick's User Page: "I often like to look at NPOV-challenged articles, where secondary activist sources imagine they are primary players, to make pronouncements which are not factual") is not worthy of serious attention.
Ah, so I have to assume good faith on the part of an anonymous user re-inserting links to a site which was linkspammed all across the project (after all, anons hardly ever add spam links, do they?), whereas you are allowed to assume not only bad faith, but no possibility of anything else, on my part. Thanks for clearing that up. Sounds to me like this is going nowhere. Feel free to register some time so we can have a proper discussion; my tolerance for anonymous users complaining about good-faith actions is pretty low right now thanks to the Southern Baptist articles. Just zis Guy you know? 12:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links you characterize as "linkspam" weren't added by anonymous users; they were added by registered users -- users who adequately defended the links and to whom you made promises which you later broke. So what's the point of registering? And what does "good faith" or "bad faith" have to do with anything as far as posting a link goes? Either a link is relevant and informative and is on a relevant entry or it isn't -- or do you regularly conduct inquisitions as to the nefarious motives an editor might have in posting a link? And what nefarious motives could one have in, for example, posting a non-commercial, perfectly orthodox (Catholic standards) link to a page on the Rosary anyway? Money? Sex? Drugs? Power? Entree to an incredible lightness of being? What?
I didn't think this would "go anywhere" anyway. I didn't think you would apologize for mischaracterizing that site and links thereto, and would have bet against you leaving any link to that site alone. How my registering would change your attitudes is beyond me, but you can track the IP and call me anything you like. How about "Punkin'"?
Why should I apologise? The site was spammed all across the project, and the site's owner was blocked for edit-warring over its removal. As far as I'm aware nobody from fisheaters has apologised for the disruption this caused. The defence of the site on various Talk pages was arm-waving, nobody has managed to come up with anythign to indicate why it should be added when the Catholic Encyclopaedia, for example, is not. It's a site whose owner has a strong and non-mainstream POV, and it has frequently in the past been linked as an autority on a Catholic view of something where actually it propounds (to my untutored eye) a view distorted by the POV of the site owner. I hvae seen no evidence that the articles on the site are anything other than monographs, or that the writers have any significant authority on the subject matter. Given past behaviour, I am naturally sceptical. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You characterizing the links as "spam" doesn't make it so, especially since there is no policy which states how many links are too many. Given that, what does anyone from that site have to apologize for? Why should they apologize for "linkspamming" when they didn't believe they were "linkspamming"? Clarifications as to policy were asked for, and none were received. Instead, links were removed and labeled "spam." Period, the end. Links like this were left up, while links DOT com/customstimeafterepiphany2a.html like this were taken down, with no reason given except that the links of the second category are "linkspam" because there were "too many" links to that site, even though the links were to very specific pages, the site is non-commercial, the links were added by hand, and there is no magic number I've seen that indicates how many links are "too many."
Who said anything about not including the Catholic Encyclopedia (though, since the Catholic Encyclopedia was written before Vatican II, it would have nothing to say about the traditionalist "movement" with regard to the entry "traditionalist Catholics")? And as to the site-owner's "strong POV," have you read the Contact page for the site? Have you seen the spectrum of traditionalists that populate the site's forum? Of course the site-owner's view aren't "mainstream"; the site is a traditionalist Catholic site, and one of the very few that is pan-traditionalist (i.e., it is welcoming of and includes information relevant to "indultarians," those who attend Masses offered by the S.S.P.X. and the like, and sedevacantists -- none of which are "mainstream"). What sort of "authority" are you looking for? An imprimatur? On a traditionalist site? By demanding such "authority," you are basically saying that the traditionalist Catholic view can't be heard at all -- and those traditionalist views and traditionalist practices are also the historical views and practices of the Church, another reason to include links to that site and the reason why the site is linked to from the history departments of various universities (and not only that, much -- nay, most -- of the instruction involved would be of interest to "mainstream Catholics" anyway). Is there some error you've found at the site? Is there another traditionalist site that does that that site does? Is there a better, more informative, more nicely laid-out, and more exhaustive traditionalist site out there that is non-POV with regard to traditionalist "factions"? Since you've admitted to being an "outsider," how can you know what is a strong "POV" that "distorts" what traditionalists believe and what isn't? Why don't you go ask at the forum there if the site accurately reflects the beliefs and practices of traditionalist Catholics and let trads from sedes to "indulters" answer? Go ask at Angelqueen forum, a much larger forum, that also links to that site. Go find an traditionalist priest and ask him (pick any kind you like -- sede, S.S.P.X., F.S.S.P., I.C.K., doesn't matter because that site includes them all and doesn't take sides).
Yeah, "whatever." No skin off your back, right? It's not a site you spent years working on that, for no good reason at all, is getting slandered by an "encyclopedia" that Google ranks above all else.
You don't think it might perhaps have been smart to think about that before edit-warring links in over 100 articles, many of no conceivable relevance to dissenting Catholicism? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now why would someone pause to think about that before edit-warring links in over 100 articles if that person didn't think that what he or she was doing was wrong? And what do you mean by "of no conceivable relevance to dissenting Catholicism"? Are you referring to that disambiguation page? Is that all you got?
The person edit-warring identified as the site owner, and the reversion was undertaken by several trusted members of the community. Why did they not get the hint? Beats me. In what way is the dissenting Catholic view on bells, Christmas and funerals different from the usual and much wider Christian consensus? No, don't bother answering. Once again it is the evil admins conspiring to rob Wikipedia of its rightful function as a tool for disseminating opinions which are otherwise not heard, based on flimsy grounds like WP:NOT (a link farm), WP:SPAM and WP:EL; if only the Evil Admins realised that Wikipedia's true function is boosting the PageRank of every website promoting every minority view, life would be so much calmer, eh? Just zis Guy you know? 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we are not talking about links to pages on bells (and, BTW, the traditional view is very different from the mainstream Catholic view. Bells are for ex., are always used during the Consecration during the traditional Mass rarely if at all during the Novus Ordo -- and there are differences with regard to incense and the use of relics in altars and a million other things); we are talking about the entries for traditionalist Catholics, liturgical year, Catholicism, Lent, Advent, Christmas, Easter, and a few other calender-related entries (since you don't seem to know, traditionalists use an entirely different calendar and Missal, their Mass readings are different, etc.).
I don't know whether admins are "evil" or not, but they seem to be ignorant of the facts concerning traditional Catholicism and very shy about explaining the rules they expect others to live by and know by some psychic means (since nowhere is there a, for ex., "any more than 10 links is spam!" rule that I've seen). And seeing how the website in question has more traffic since it got purged from Wikipedia, your continuing on about anyone from that site using it to "boost page rank" is silly.
As to this "minority view" label, yes, traditionalists are a minority (so are Orthodox Jews; perhaps we should purge links to their views?), but their views aren't some "fringe thing" (many traditionalists attend regular parishes at Masses offered with the local Bishops' permission). And especially given that the rumors are flying hard with regard to Benedict XVI's "normalization" of the S.S.P.X., the information contained at the site will be even more needed.
I'd reply, but I've spent the evning doing research and adding to this great free online encyclopaedia you might have heard of. I managed not to include any links to my site at all while doing so, even though I have spent many hours building it. Such restraint! Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if adding a link to your site would benefit the encyclopedia by providing information suitable to the entry, you should add it and quit worrying about whether it might affect your "page rank." This is especially true if yours is the site that handles that information best or is the only site that handles it at all. At the least, you should stop deleting ALL links to a site just because it ended up on your shit list. How many links are "too many"? Why not allow that magical number?
It's funny how often the owners of a particular site claim that their insight is more objective than that of other editors. Not that this view is ever particularly persuasive... Just zis Guy you know? 10:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of fact, isn't it? You find another site out there that does what FE does or not?
Adds itself to 100 Wikipedia articles and then raises hell when the linkspam is removed? No, you're on your own there I admit. Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those who, at relevant entries, added 100 links to specific pages of a non-commercial site -- one that that is, indeed, the most exhaustive in the world on the topic of traditional Catholicism (a question of fact; check it out) -- didn't see an "any more than X links is spam" rule written anywhere (where is it again?) and never got an answer as to how many is "too many" even after explicit requests for information, arbitration, and assistance in the matter. And that was then, this is now. Now there are no links to the site.
So how many links are "too many"? And why can't there be that magical number of links to that site on relevant pages, most especially on the entry "traditionalist Catholics"? When does the punishment end for breaking a rule no one has seen and which one didn't know one was breaking in the first place? I think murderers typically get 7 years or so...
Thing is, if you look at Special:Contributions/Used2BAnonymous, the last known actual account of the fiseaters owner (who I presume is you, you don't seem to be disputing that), there is almost nothing there apart from adding links and fighting about their removal. Oh, and fighting with another editor. True, there are some edits to SPX and others, but the edit history shows that little of what you added remains (the major edit which survives was the removal of a couple of paragraphs summarising what's in SSPX). And of course you added your site. And now you are using an anonymous account again, one shared with a vandal from the edit history. Can you see why that looks bad? Why it might be viewed askance when an editor has as their major contribution adding their own site, about which they are never going to have a neutral view? Your constant assertions that yours is the "most exhaustive site" on this or that are not backed by reliable third-party references. Amazon reviews can be and often are manipulated (part of the process of Gastroturfing was to have unflattering reviews removed and have socks and meatpuppets add favourable ones - plus, of course, there is an inherent bias towards those likely to agree before visiting the site).
I'm sure you have knowledge which is relevant to the encyclopaedia, b ut there is little evidence of you doing anything other than pushing your own agenda. Look up Jason Gastrich to see just how popular that can be! I suggest you register, edit only when registered, establish a reputation on articles in a much wider context than just dissenting Catholicism, and then achieve consensus on the Talk pages for adding your links. When people who disagree with your view on Catholicism nonetheless support addition of your links, you will know you have succeeded. Simply waiting until you think everything's been forgotten and starting again is not going to work - in fact it's going to amke things worse. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a search engine optimisation tool. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a resource for promoting your website. Take part in building an encyclopaedia and people will cut you some slack, take part in nothign but pushing a POV and promoting your own site and they won't. Simple really. Just zis Guy you know? 10:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to look at the Talk pages for the Traditionalist Catholic entry, where MONTHS were spent in debate with Dominick while the page was locked down half the time. That entry, BTW, was taken almost ENTIRELY from DOT com/traditionalcatholicism.html this page (links to the encyclicals at Fish Eaters, of course, just had to be changed to be directed to papalencyclicals.net or ewtn.com, even though it was Fish Eaters whence the article was taken, it was I who wrote the article, and even though "papalencyclicals.net" has no more "authority" than FE. And now there can't even be a link to the site at all anywhere at that entry. He even took down a link to an encyclical at FE and replaced it with a link to one at a commercial site (http://www.lutgentrading.com/) That is the level of animosity shown toward that site by a mainstream, anti-trad Catholic editor who worked on that page and which is the genesis of this whole "let's get FE" game started by Dominick and picked up on by admins when it was discovered that there were "too many" links to that site -- a rule that has never been fully explained (one can't have "too many links" to papalencyclicals.net, apparently) and which led to the "night of the purge" when alllllll links to the site were deleted by a slew of admins (still without explanation of what exactly the rules ARE) and I lost it, and got frantic and angry. And no one would listen to anything I or anyone who liked my site at all had to say. "Linkspam" was the only word that mattered, and all the "how many are too many?" and "how can it be spam if the site is non-commercial" questions were ignored in themselves, only to be answered with the accusation that I was wanting to "boost page rank" (an assertion which found "evidence" -- now demolished -- in the fact that after the "purge" which came days after a Christmastime domain name change, page views fell acc. to Alexa). I offered to give an admin access to a temporary username/password to the site so they could log in and look at the traffic stats themselves. No response. No defense was ever listened to. The "linkspam" label was all it took, and now the site is blacklisted -- even though I obviously had no idea that there was any rule-breaking going on given the RfC against Dominick in which I, myself, listed a long list of Wiki links to FE for all the world to see.
And note, too, that Dominick was not an admin when he was going around Wiki deleting all links he found to FE (and is not an admin now). He was leaving up links like the one to that St. Brigid's parish linked to above (complete with embedded midi file and everything) while taking down the FE link on the same topic, presented above for contrast. At one entry, for ex., he'd take down one link to my site and add TWO links to another site, all while calling my site "linkspam." And while he was doing this sort of thing, he was calling FE a "BLOG" in some edit summaries. He even had this to say about FE:
"Samuel, there is an example of the biggest problem of all with Fisheaters. They have a narrow selfserving definition of Catholicism, and of traditionalist. If you are not banging a gong everytime a Bishop falters with sufficient glee and schadenfruende, if you dislike sedavancantist adventures, and will not attend a SSPX chapel then you are not welcome on thier forum, and you shall find the site problematic."
Aside from the same sort of nonsensical English that was the issue of (literally) MONTHS worth of debate for the traditionalist Catholic entry -- and which, in this particular case, could be paraphrased, "if a Bishop falters with sufficient glee and 'shadenfreunde' (ahem), you're not considered a trad by FE unless you bang a gong" -- what a lie is his intimation. The lies about disliking "sedevacantist adventures" (climbing the Himalayas maybe?) and not attending SSPX chapels putting one outside FE's "selfserving" definition of Catholicism are so blatantly FALSE that it is disgusting, especially since I, the person who runs that site, have never set foot in an SSPX chapel in my life. Any look at the forum there will show those lies up for what they are. So he lied right in my face and to "the world" (via the public RfC which Google finds very quickly) about my site, and went about, as a non-admin, deleting any link to it he could find. I go to arbitration and file an RfC trying to get help, and instead get a "well, yeah, it's all linkspam! Let's delete!" -- still with no solid answers as to how many links are too many and having been totally unaware that I broke any rule at all.
As to "third party references," I never mentioned Amazon reviews. You've been challenged to ask traditionalist Catholics what the deal is. Or just go visit traditionalist Catholic websites and look around. Compare DOT com/beingcatholic.html this page with any other instructional trad site out there, and as you do, keep in mind that FE is pan-trad and doesn't take sides in the debates among sedevacantists, "SSPXers," and "indultarians," etc. You will not find another site like that. I know that for a fact because that is "my world," and you don't because you haven't looked into it and are an "outsider." That is why this is so frustrating, and this tale is why I come off as pretty pissy about it.
As to an "agenda," I am a traditional Catholic and my mission in my life is to teach others about traditional Catholicism in a pan-trad way. With regard to Wiki, I worked on the trad Catholic and other such entries in the same way a biology teacher might want to provide information about a certain biology topic but is not interested in writing articles about teddy bears (I am now too busy to become a Wiki Editor as a major hobby, and am too "beat up" after the endless debates anyway). I don't give a flying fig about "search engine optimisation" -- well, that's not true; of course I care, but that's not the thing. The thing is, or at least was, with regard to Wiki, providing information about traditional Catholicism (which is what I spent months doing at the entry for that topic) and providing links, on relevant pages, to further information for those who are interested. Yeah, it'd be nice to have links on a few pages (Advent, Lent, Christmas, Easter, Sacraments, Sacramentals, Liturgical Year, Catholicism, and, at least, at the Traditionalist Catholic entry), but at this point, though, I just don't want my site to be slandered as it is, or blacklisted like some sleazy porno site, with that "linkspam" label next to every removal of any link someone might add. I've spent years researching, writing, and HTML-formatting that site, spending hours even just trying to find just the right picture for a given page, and am sickened to see my work being labelled with the same sort of invective one would rightfully hurl at an e-mail with V*I*A*G*R*A as the subject line. Seriously.
Ahem: you are a traditionalist Catholic, which is a different thing. My friend Séamus is a traditional Catholic, in the sense of being in communion with Rome and accepting the present rules and traditions of the Catholic church. I know where you are coming from: the Anglican Church also has its dissenters from modernisaiton, the Continuing Anglican Movement, also made up of numerous smaller factions. But anything they say on the wider subject of the Anglican tradition has to be carefully checked for subtle bias.
Dominick is just another editor. So am I. I was not an admin during the December removal and your edit war, I am now, but not all those who took part in that mass reversion of linkspam were admins. Wikipedia precedent and community guidelines are very firm: you should not add links to your own website or a site with which you are associated. Not one link, not one hundred links. And in truth there is little evidence to my eye of your doing anything other than pushing your agenda, which is not true of Dominick, as far as I can tell, whose edit history may include a lot of Catholicism related articles but is by no means restricted to those. We assume good faith, but not in the face of obvious abuse. You need to build up your reputation by contributing to the encyclopaedia in a way which is not vanity - include the information you have in the articles ratehr than in offsite POV forks or links to your own site. Remember: it is not possible that you have a nutral perception of your own work. Just zis Guy you know? 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, you don't find it absolutely rich that you, an Anglican, presume to "excommunicate" me? Your friend, Seamus, is "in communion with Rome," but I, am not? You might want to call my parish (a regular Diocesan parish in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis) and inform my priest (one of those F.S.S.P. priests who operate directly under the Pope); perhaps he can arrange something lovely with a bell, book and candle to make my "excommunication" formal and memorable. But what is your point anyway? If one were wanting to worship in the traditional way, whether in or out of "communion with Rome" (either way is covered at FE, which takes no sides), one shouldn't expect to find information about how to do so or links to such information at Wiki? Why not? What at that site would offend the sensibilities of Seamus?
"Wikipedia guidelines" are more than just "very firm," apparently; no one may add any link to the site in question. Not any at any time on any entry, not now or ever in the future, and any link found will be presumed to have been added by me -- and for the cause of "vanity," at that, even though I don't even post my name at my site (how was my "vanity" served by spending months working on the "Traditionalist Catholics" entry? I forget...). And isn't it curious to you that, on the one hand, my site is lambasted as a "monograph" while, on the other, any link added to it is presumed to have been added by someone "associated with" it? Hey, can people who visit EWTN and ask questions, hang out on the discussion forum at Catholic.com, or use the Catholic Encyclopedia ever add links to those sites?
Yes, I know that the people who took down the links to the site that night weren't admins, which just goes to show the problem. If you didn't know you were breaking some (STILL unseen) rule about "too many" links and saw a group of non-admins -- with your "archnemesis" Dominick among them -- coming at you like that, what would you think and how would you feel? Then throw in the fact that it was all done right in the middle of RfCs, requests on my part for arbitration, and trying to get information as to what exactly the rule is. If a group of trads all ganged up together and starting taking down ALL links to some site or other en masse, wouldn't that be seen as the totally unfair actions of a cabal of agenda-driven meatpuppets? And if no link were even allowed again -- not ever, not even one, not even on an entry that gets its information from the site in question -- wouldn't that be seen as a bit over the top?
As to an "agenda," if you think neo-con Dominick doesn't have one, you're not looking hard enough. Neo-con Catholicism and neo-con politics, that's his thing (he, BTW, has an account at Free Republic and was all over the entry for that forum). Not once, for example, have I seen him work on the entry for waffles, which is a good thing, really, or else we'd be hearing about how President Bush eats them (though it'd be written in English so mangled that the waffles would be portrayed as eating Bush).
Remember: it is not possible that you have a neutral perception of my work. Alas and alack and whatever. I doubt the slander will stop, but know that it is slander -- now with accusations of "vanity" and "excommunication" on top.
You're not listening are you? Your links were reverted by a group consisting of both ordinary editors and admins. The only difference between the two is a couple of extra buttons and community support (see WP:100). Your linkajor contribution to the project appears to be linking your site to a hundred odd articles. Don't do that'. Like it says in WP:EL under links to normally avoid, A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article. But what you did was to add it yourself and then revert war about its removal. And on this page you have expended many words tiptoeing around that same policy. Community consensus is perfectly clear: do not add links to your own site. The reasons are easy to understand from WP:NOT (a promotional vehicle, a link farm etc). I find it significant that your approach to resolving the problem is to continue to argue about the links rather than to contribute to the encyclopaedia: if you are serious about including the knowledge rather than the links, then you should include the knowledge in the encyclopaedia. That is the whole point. Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening fine, but apparently you aren't. Here are the rules as they appeared at the time in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&oldid=34252794 The rule on THAT page says that the site owner or a site's affiliates should not add a link to promote the site in question. That is all, and there is not one word about "too many links" to any given site. Well, no link was added to promote a site (if that were the goal, I'd have added links to the front page and not spent hours making links to specific articles). And as I've said, I am no longer arguing about removing links I've added, and am no longer going to waste my time editing articles, which would amount to arguing with people like Dominick for hours on end because I, too, am not interested in writing about waffles. I am an extremely busy person. I DO, however, care about the slander -- slander that Google ranks high -- and I do mind that NO ONE can ever add ANY link to that site ever because it ended up on some blacklist.
Ah, so the bit where it says the site owner or a site's affiliates should not add a link to promote the site in question is the bit you were ignoring then, and [avoid adding] A website that you own or maintain [...] is the bit you're ignoring now, thanks for clearing that up. I repeat: if you are so fired up about the informaiton you have, then add the information rather than simply linking to your site. Oh but wait, you're too busy (which doesn't seem to have stopped you spending a lot of time arguing here, of course). Wikipedia is not about links, it's about information. It is not a link farm, a way of boosting your page rank, or even a way of putting across your point of view, it's about stating what is known in a neutral way. We don't have POV forks, onsite or offsite, and we don't exist to endorse or promote any particular site.
But no, it is very clear from the above discussion that linking your site is of vastly more importance to you than including your knowledge in the project. So nothing has changed since December. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "IN ORDER TO PROMOTE YOUR SITE" part of the rule that you are forgetting. And how does adding a link to www.x.com/y.html boost page rank for www.x.com anyway? If the goal were to "promote my site," I'd have been adding links to the index page, not to a page on the Feast of St. John, for ex. And, BTW, I'd bet you that none of the "purgers" of that night ever bothered to see who added what link to what page; it would have been purged if 1000 other people had added them. The site got "purged" because there were "too many" links -- even though there was never any rule that stated how many links were "too many." (And also, BTW, Dominick started deleting links to it calling it a "blog" and such, way long before anyone ever even threw the "linkspam" word at me. That was the very reason for my RfC against him). Those are the facts.
Yes, you're extremely correct that I am no longer interested in the Wiki "project." A few months of Dominick was enough for me. Wiki is good as a starting point for the very basics concerning non-controversial topics; for anything else, it should only be consumed, if at all, with a big grain of salt and only as a starting point for further information since it is put together by people who think that truth is arrived at by "consensus." It's ten wolves and a two sheep sitting down to write an article on what constitutes "food."
As to "my" POV, there is a traditional Catholic "movement" out there that Wiki can either ignore or not. I wouldn't care about that at all if Google didn't seem to care so much, but I did waste months caring about the articles themselves and am done now.
And for the millionth time, I don't give too big of a damn whether Wiki links to me or not, but I do not wish to have my site slandered and automatically blacklisted like some vile form of porn.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a link farm, there's the bottom line. As far as I'm concerned 99% of external links could be purged. We should only be linking externally where the resource in question is authoratative. Google rankings and Alexa data don't have so much bearing on the matter, unlike when we are considering whether a website is notable enough to have an article.
If other editors have decided by concensus that your site is not authoratative why don't you spend your time improving it, instead of giving Guy an ear bashing? If you're so passionate about your site's inclusion there must be something in it for you (POV or promotion). The louder someone shouts on an issue like this the more they need to be ignored! --kingboyk 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this entire place must be populated by Stepford bots programmed to repeat over and over "Wiki is Not a Link Farm.... Wiki is not a Link Farm". Now, read what I wrote above. Note that part that says "And for the millionth time, I don't give too big of a damn whether Wiki links to me or not, but I do not wish to have my site slandered and automatically blacklisted like some vile form of porn." As to "notable," no site on a topic of interest to a minority is "notable" in the sense of "Wow! Look at those Alexa ratings!!!!" As to "authority," who is the King of the Trads I should consult in order to get an imprimatur that isn't given to websites in the first place? As to "improving" my site, I am doing that all the time (those 600 pages didn't write themselves), not that the illiterate here would ever know. And it is already the best site of its kind out there, whether you realize it or not, whether JusZisAdmin thinks I can POSSIBLY be objective or not, and so forth. As to "what's in it for me," read what I've written above. Or have someone read it to you, interpreting as he goes along if it's beyond your capabilities.
I like fish. Well, sushi mostly. Does that mean we can't be friends anymore, Guy? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been said that if the General Synod convened a committee to market sushi they would come up with the name "raw dead fish". Just zis Guy you know? 22:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You like fish, Katefan0? That's it, you're dead to me. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Katefan0 you have been indefently banned by the Wikipedia Community for enjoying the chicken of the sea, please take this disgusting habit somewhere else =). Mike(TC) 23:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The flamewar of the day is Trout Amandine... Georgewilliamherbert 19:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but, but (splutter) SPAM is notfish! It's ham. Some religion somewhere will have a problem with putting ham and fish together, you know.... What made you think of Spam anyway? Surely it can't be some sort of comment on this thread is it? I know it isn't that, because I'm assuming good faith here! ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had my kids in hysterics today listening to the Spam sketch: Lobster Thermidor aux Crevettes with a Mornay sauce Served in a Provençale Manner with Shallots and Aubergines garnished with Truffle Paté, Brandy and with a Fried egg on top and Spam. Just zis Guy you know? 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i was just reading the latest rant from JG that you posted on the Gastrich evidence page. What is strange is that there seemed to be abosolutely no justified reason for him going off like that. If you look at CDThieme contributions at the time he nominated that page for AfD there was no reason to believe he did it except he thought it was non notable. Prior to Dec 8th 2005, CDThieme (talk·contribs) had zero interaction with Gastrich. This is striking since it highlights Gastrich's "everyone is out to get me" mentality that, to be frank, looks a lot like paranoia. David D.(Talk) 21:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, I was forgetting you only see the last edit for any given page in contributions. Excuse my brainfart. So we can just put this one down to good old-fashioned retribution. David D.(Talk) 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. How did you find me, sir? Chris 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can even remember. Your talk page is on my watchlist, for no reason which springs readily to mind, and as a result I saw the comments. I subscribe to the "friends you haven't met before" school of thought, so I dropped by to offer my condolences, but words are (of course) inadequate. An unimaginable loss which I sincerely hope I will never have to deal with myself - as a depressive anyway I would handle it appallingly. You show great dignity, I salute you. Just zis Guy you know? 00:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir, she is proud of me to hear you say that. I am coming apart at the seams but I know we are together, as our love is too strong to destroy. Chris 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to re-visit your AFD opinion on this figure. As noted in her article, she received an Emmy award for invesitgative journalism, which seems like a pretty good claim for notability. Citation here. -Colin Kimbrell 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I think this illustrates why we should wait before documenting these things: people get caught up in creating articles for a load of people they have never heard of before, so the focus of the article is some piece of mental chewing-gum. If someone with an interest in journalism had created the article it would have included the relevant data from the start. Just zis Guy you know? 10:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you right back for the quick and reasonable response, and in general I agree with your point. -Colin Kimbrell 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know anything about this AfD before I happened to stop by JzG's talk page (I don't even know who Tammy Leitner is), but Emmy awards should not be considered anywhere near as prestigious as, say, winning an Oscar. Emmy Awards are given out like candy; there are national Emmys, regional Emmys, local Emmys, etc. (They are prestigious if you win one of the national ones, but the vast majority of them are not national-level, and nobody ever exactly goes out of their way to point out that their Emmy is for, say, "Best Live Sports Report in Dubuque, Iowa in 1998". And as far as I can tell, Leitner won one of the local ones.) There's a saying in TV news that if you've been in the business for more than three or four years and haven't won at least one Emmy, it's time to find another line of work. --Aaron 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are any more developed than ZuluPad, and each of them has it's own page. I would like to continue developing the Desktop Wiki article, as I think it's an interesting new trend in software development, but I don't see why this application shouldn't be listed. I urge you to reconsider your vote.
Omeomi 00:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming I think the others are notable. I am not convinced. I have only nominated the ones which immediately presented themselves as minor, thus far, but rest assured that I will be continuing to check those lists. You are, of course, free to nominate any articles yourself if you know them to be insignificant. Existence of toehr trivia is not grounds for inclusion, verifiable information of significance (in market share, innovation or reputation) is. Feel free to add any such information. Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not try out ZuluPad, try out the competition, and then decide whether or not it's innovative? I think you'll find that it is. As for market share, it has 100% of the cross-platform Desktop Wiki market share, because there is no direct competition, and while it's a new program, it's reputation has thus far been extremely good Omeomi 16:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be under a misapprehension as to the nature of Wikipedia. The project exists to document that which can be verified by reference to reliable external sources, and to do so in a neutral way. By common consent that is not possible until somethign has achieved sufficient external attention to be able to assess the neutrality of the external sources. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Also, I am highly unlikely ever to want this product, because it is designed to do a job I don't need done. The point that it is a new product is not lost on me: come back when it's an old established product :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of existing knowledge - it's not a product announcement site, an advertising board, or a technical newsletter. ZuluPad just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article yet. --kingboyk 17:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JzG, isn't it against the rules (or at least guidelines) for editors to go trolling for votes on an AfD? (And yes, I'm talking about the latest batch of 9/11 conspitacy articles.) Thanks, --Aaron 23:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not against the rules as such, but not good either. The closing admin has the right to ignore vote-stacking and take into account only those who give valid reasons. Just zis Guy you know?
I have rewritten this article from verifiable sources and renamed it. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a reply to your count of "unique" Google hits for this subject. I'm not asking you to reconsider your vote, as you probably based your vote on multiple factors, but I am trying to get folks to leave the unique Google hits thing off of AfD :)
I saw your comments at the universism DRV and I found it surprising that 50,000+ hits turned into 400+ when only unique ones were counted. This is an important issue now that unique googles are being taken into account more than the old process of merely counting the totals. I was looking at old debates and I saw this comment when another user pointed out the discrepency between googles and unique googles, as he found merely 247 unique hits. "I contest this claim. Google never displays more than 1000 results, and it seems that these 247 are only unique hits among these 1000. If the ratio of duplicates is the same among the remaining hits, I would estimate about 6500 unique ones. - Mike Rosoft". Now Mike is an administrator who voted delete on the article, and it seems he makes a good point. Do you know if this is accurate? If so it will greatly affect the unique google count for any results over 1000 for any search; this stretches well beyond Universism.
And another thing, it's looking like Universism is probably going to go back to AFD. When this happens do you want to handle the nomination? I believe all such AFD listings should either argue for deletion or at least be neutrally worded. I find when people do proceedural nominations and then argue why the article should be kept it really tends to skew the voting, as people are loath to vote to delete something when no reasons are given, and even the nominator is voting to keep it. By the time a reason to delete appears in the discussion there might be half a dozen or more keep votes, which is a difficult hurdle to overcome, even when the reasons for deletion are sound. (This has been a problem in the past, and has led me to take some rather controversial actions.) I'll likely be arguing to keep it, and I'm one of the few editors it seems who ever does these relistings, so I certainly shouldn't do the nomination. I trust you'd be critical but fair. And do give this google question some thought before you mention the 400 unique hits. Thanks. -R. fiend 21:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed Adrian Lamo's similar comments above, making much of this a bit redundant. I do wonder if Mike's hypothesis about proportional hits is correct (total uniques being a ratio of stated number per 1000) or if the whole idea of "unqiue" hits is a misnomer and a red herring. In any case, Adrian is right in thay anything will get less than 1000. Look at "Thomas Jefferson" [3]. 795. -R. fiend 22:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, with the programme now. I still think the universists are POV pushers; when somebody who is not a Univerisst comes along with an article, or when they have a few million adherents, them perhaps I'll be happier about it. Just zis Guy you know? 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd prefer it not to be written by Universists as well, but I think they have enough media coverage that people will look for this, and we should be able to tell them something about it, not deny it exists. I think we have enough good editors here that we can keep it pretty verifiable and NPOV, even if it means stubbifying it. And I think a million members is a pretty high bar to clear. Most organizations we cover don't have that many members. Though the group claims to have over 10,000 members, I'm sure that's an exaggeration, but it's clear it's more than a dozen guys hanging out over a few beers. Anyway, the article is back at AFD, if you want to make your views known. -R. fiend 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In RE to "Delete in the absensce of (a) evidence of currency, (b) the name of the magazine and (c) any likelihood of me caring anyway, since it's clearly a bit of cruft." Your opinion of caring or not is hardly worth anything. You are nothing but a moderator on a public website. And since you do not enjoy neologisms, maybe you should stop using the word CRUFT, you moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.143.173 (talk • contribs)
JZG: The above comment was at the top of your page. I moved it to the bottom. Apparently, this person objected to the AfD comments on Nottie He/she left me a response that was just as nice.. Fan1967 22:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving it, it's easy top miss things like that on a biusy talk page. The anon is welcome to his opinions, and should feel free to accommodate them where the sun doesn't shine :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see additional info on Wikipedia:Deletion review re deletion of my user page. You may wish to reconsider in the light of it. Thanks J1838 20:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to know if you could help me out with a page move. I posted the details at Requested Moves here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=41545304. If you can help me just let me know, I can fill in any detatls I have missed, its a simple page move, just the name it is going to is currently a redirect. Mike(TC) 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm working on KLF discography. To aid with formatting, I created two templates. The image thumbnails I am using get passed as arguments to the templates. I've noticed that, presumably as a result of the use of a template, the Image page doesn't know that the image is being used in an article (see e.g. Image:The KLF- Burn The Bastards.jpg). I'm worried that some bot will come along and say "right, they're not being used", and list them for deletion.
If you can suggest a way round this or what might be causing it please leave a message on my talk page (as I've asked several people). Cheers. --kingboyk 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't Kingboyk just subst the template, thus including the thumbnail directly on the page? I'm not clear why that's not a workable solution. JDoorjamTalk 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I could, but the beauty of using the template is that the formatting can be changed for every row in one quick step. I suppose I could subst the templates once a few other editors have evaluated and tweaked the formatting. The page is new and there are sure to be changes requested.
Please take any further discussion to my talk page, cheers. --kingboyk 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no idea, so I asked on WikiEN-l, which is probably where these folks are coming from :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat surprised you are in favour of keeping the Brian Peppers article. Peppers is a disabled man suffering from a congenital deformity who was convicted of a technical offence after an inappropriate contact with his nurse/carer. His sole claim to notability is that some nerds chose to laugh at his deformity. They must really regret the passing of Thalidomide. I say leave the poor guy in peace. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is getting too much of their news from YTMND. The little tidbit about him groping a nurse was perpetuated by the fraud Allen Peppers. We have no idea what the nature of his offense is. -UBERGOD
True, we don't know. It could av ebeen a visitor to his nursing home. But it's pretty clear he's a pitiful character. Just zis Guy you know? 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still feel this way because if so we disagree Yuckfoo 01:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it fine to hound the guy because he's ugly? Or are there more encyclopedic reasons? David D.(Talk) 02:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... OK, I must have missed this when my internet connection was down last week. Can't imagine how this could possibly be encyclopedic and Jimbo's one year moratorium is quite correct. He (Peppers) will probably have been forgotten by then. I hope so anyway. --kingboyk 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sad state of affairs when fellow Wikipedia editors equate writing an article about a sad, yet notable subject somehow equates to "hounding" said subject. Good faith is long gone it seems. Silensor 20:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone say Wikipedia was doing the hounding? I believe it is the web forums and their juvenile subscribers who are doing the hounding, and the best policy is to studiously ignore it. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not notable. He's an 'ugly' guy whose photo is doing the rounds for a while. Come back in a year and see if he's still being talked about. If he is, create an article.
It's a sad state of affairs when fellow Wikipedia editors are in a mad rush to create an article on a guy whose only claim to fame is that he looks weird. --kingboyk 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the meme has already existed for one year. The whole "come back in a year" thing doesn't fly with me, sorry. Silensor 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry Guy). Fair enough. I'd never heard of it until this week. It was Jimbo who placed the one year moratorium on it, maybe you should have a word with him: User talk:Jimbo Wales. --kingboyk 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's no big deal. But I do feel quite strongly that when it's documented that he lives in a nursing home, appears to suffer from a congenital deformity, all known adult pictures show him in a wheelchair, and despite rumours to the contrary his victim was not a child but apparently his nurse (and the offence was in any case a technical one), this comes under the heading of kicking a man when he's down, something we Brits are typically not keen on. Actually I think I called the guys on YTMND who made fun of Peppers "a bunch of sick fucks". And come to think of it, I haven 't changed that view. I used to do volunteer work with the disabled, I met a lot of Thalidomide victims, spina bifida and other congenital deformities, one of my first school friends died of muscular dystrophy, my late friend David Silsoe devoted much time and effort to helping people with Downs syndrome. As far as I am concerned, congenital defomrity is not even remotely funny. I was kind of hoping we'd got past the age of the freak show, but I guess those guys must see The Elephant Man as a comedy. Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I keep running across your edits while browsing meta-wikipedia issues - AfD, mediation, all that.
While I've disagreed with you often on AfD, and expect to keep doing so, I'd just like to say ... thanks for doing it. If you know what I mean. GRuban 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks. Wielding the mop can be a thankless task at times, it's nice to be appreciated :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spending all hours chasing Jason Gastrich socks and patrolling articles on Southern fundamentalist evangelists? You love it, surely?! Thanks indeed! You'll be asking for payment next! ;-) --kingboyk 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in moving St. Albans School to St. Albans School (Washington), so it can be a disambig page. I tried, but can't, since I'm not an admin (I get an error). It might avoid another mistake, like linking a pre-Columbian pope to an American school (that particular boo-boo is fixed though). I thought I'ld ask you, since you were involved in the old discussion, and are familiar with it. --Rob 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that User:Owain has tried to pull the wool over your eyes on this one. The dispute is nothing to do with "original names" of Scottish counties. It is to do with when they were created and when they were abolished. Owain has lost his attempts to claim that counties are somehow an "historic" subdivision of Scotland (see Talk:Counties of Scotland), and I and other editors are happy with that article as it now stands, and further improvements are being discussed. The counties were created in 1889 and abolished in 1975. Owain goes berserk every time it is pointed out that the counties no longer exist: they were actually abolished in a piece of legislation. He persistently tries to apply the present tense of the verb to all references to Scottish counties, and changes "former" (which they are) to "traditional" or "historic" (which they most certainly are not).
Please remove that warning from my Talk: you are being seriously deceived and taken advantage of.
I will put up a notice at Talk:Counties of Scotland to alert other editors to the issue with the templates. Do not be deceived either by User:Astrotrain backing Owain up. Astrotrain has recently publicly stated his loathing for me, and is currently engaged on disrupting as many of my edits as he can manage.--Mais oui! 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have no caring about the rights and wrongs of the particular edit, I do care about edit warring. Taking it to Talk is absolutely fine, once consensus is established there will be no problem at all with getting backing against attempts to change it. I'm quite willing to believe you are in the right and Owain is pushing a barrow, I've warned him as well. I'm sure you can settle the dispute. Thanks for dropping by :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a little suspicious that this user claims to be Jason Gastrich's wife, thus seemingly alleviating concerns of sockpuppetry by probably using the same IP address. A problem is that Mrs Gastrich posted an RfA after merely 2 edits, which is disconcerting.
However, your post on the page that Mrs Gastrich was a sockpuppet of God and to refer to the Bible I found inappropriate. I have since removed the offensive parts, leaving only the statement of possible sockpuppetry. I understand you may have passionate feelings about Gastrich and his involvement, but please do not deliberately publish untruths.
Jfingers88 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know this is a joke, right? This is a joke account created as light relief by one of the many editors who have been fighting off the relentless Gastroturfing of Southern Baptist articles. The RFA is headed for BJAODN for that very reason. I don't know who it was, but I have my suspicions :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who could have done such a thing? David D.(Talk) 20:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other weys this could curdle? David D.(Talk) 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice implication, but nah, I'm saving up for April Fools day. I've already started the programming (yes, it involves programming). --Cyde Weys 23:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very clever. But what happens if someone changes the picture >8-o (i tried and failed) David D.(Talk) 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly robust. After i changed the picture and you (Guy) change the redirect it still works?? Of course he is a computer scientist. No contest. David D.(Talk) 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah i see there was a time delay before the modified png kicked in. Beware Cyde, vandals could have a field day with your cyde.png. Sorry for the WP:BEANS so feel free to delete some of this stuff. David D.(Talk) 21:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is why I already asked one admin if they could protect the image and the image page, but they wouldn't do it for me :-( I tried to explain that protecting a user's page at a user's request in one of the things you're least likely to get in trouble for, but he didn't go for it. I am hereby now asking you troublemakers. -- 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Ask what? To upload even worse pictures into cyde.png? LOL. But seriously, i think you'll find that people will complain about the image in your signature. Everytime you sign a page it is adding a png to a talk page that has to be linked. not so bad if one or two users are doing it but terrible if every user is doing it. For this reason it is highly recommended stick to html-like signatures, as you had before. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news because the redirect idea is very clever. David D.(Talk) 21:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ROFLMAO, that was the funniest thing I've seen in a looong time. Since the over-wikied article, anyway. We're running at about 3 socks-per-day right now I think, I don't think its even worth adding to RCU at this point, I just block indef, slap a block notice and a sock tag on and move on. Nice to see someone found a way to make this amusing. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's funny at all. If you (or its creator) want it to be a joke, add the appropriate template so it's clear. Besides, people shouldn't really be making sockpuppets at all, right? Jfingers88 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, relax. It's harmless, really. No edits were made in article space using that account, after all, and KC and I are both admins. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, this is not an attack on religion, is that how you see it jfingers? David D.(Talk) 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While in bad taste it is fucking hilarious. Mike(TC) 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not even bad taste, really, just a bit harsh on poor old Jason, but he does set himself up a biot for that kind of thing, doesn't he? Just zis Guy you know? 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite hilarious. Nevertheless, I toned it down a bit to squelch the vague feeling that this might be using God's name in vain, while still reflecting the disputed behavioral pattern and the flavour of the original tag. I'm not quite sure the Jasons will like the change though. AvB ÷ talk 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So this aching ListCruft remains on Wiki. Never mind. But a question, when you qualify a vote to endorse a no consensus -> keep decision with recommendations for cleanup, would it change your vote if you knew at the time that nobody was going to clean it up and it'll be stuck there with a bunch of cleanup tags forever? I would rather see people make recommendations they would be genuinely willing to implement themselves. I don't give a toss about the subject matter, it's just such a bad list for so many reasons. Deiz 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not cleaned up in a reasonable period, nominate it again. It's unlikely to get "keep and clean up" twice. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, ever since you met me you have impressed me with rash statements of judgements about me. I really don't understand why you have approached me in such matter. I just want us to work together on an encyclopedia. I don't see no need to accuse me, make me feel inferior, or even list my proposal on MfD, which gives the impression that you have stalked me or have a motive like a vendetta. There is a discussion page for the proposal. The dignified way to remove a proposal you do not like is to reject it. However, you want to delete it and that is not wise. I know you do not believe me in my attempts, and you do not have to. This attempt to write you here is to really to just throw away whatever has happened between you and me and start over with a proper "Hello." Please!
Welcome to wikipedia, let's build an encyclopedia! — Dzonatas 16:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to delete it for the same reasons given on the talk pages for it and the "competing" proposal (WP is not a competition): both are unnecessary and further bloat the list of guidelines and policies without actually adding anything to the processes. I don't think it's necessary, helpful or beneficial. Simple as that, really.
My view on 3RR is simple: it exists to stop edit wars. Edit wars are evil (and yes, I get sucked into them all the time, so I know they are evil and I still end up doing the evil thing because - like most edit warriors - I don't always stop and think first). In the end there seems to be a massive race to kill tendentious content or restore the "proper" version and then talk about it - but nobody Out There really cares. If we care enough to push to the 3RR threshold we have probably lost out neutrality. Again, I do it all the time, look at my edit history. Policy and guidelines are there to tell us how we should behave, not how we should make policy, because policy is essentially settled - WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. The rest is just guiidelines. We don't need guidelines on the making of guidelines. We can have as many commentaries as we like - lots of us have written essays of varying length on our views - but in the end WP is not about process it's about content.
I am imperfect, and I recognise my imperfections. I am opinionated, argumentative, tenacious, prone to excessive focus on detail and giving undue weight, and not ready enough to admit when I'm wrong. I know all these things. I am also notoriously naive, and very much inclined to believe uncritically the opinions and judgments of those who I have come to trust. I will of course go back and re-read the history and re-assess my opinion. Actually my opinion of you is pretty neutral, I know a strong opinion when I see it, and I don't think that makes you a bad person. But I am very strongly convinced that the only way a disparate bunch of zealous geeks can work together is to take a deep breath and talk about it, so I am very strongly wedded to the most liberal interpretation of guidelines which prevent edit wars. And I am astonished that I have not as yet been blocked for 3RR myself, since I have long since lost count of the number of times I have thought "bugger, I really should not have done that". Encyclopaedia building is a slow process, and we are mostly fast-paced people.
I have recently adopted a resolution to sit down and write at least one decent-length article from scratch every week. Maybe I'll form a wiki-club. Edit warriors anonymous.
Not sure if this makes it better or worse between us, we'll have to wait and see. It's good to talk, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that we talk. I continue to disagree about the deletion of the proposal. I simply implore for a proper process to approve or reject the proposal. It is not a proposal that will be implemented any time soon. There is room for lots of more policies and guidelines, but how they are written is what is of concern. If the policy or guideline affects articles, it should strive for a higher standard to make sure it does not affect the nuetrality. I have seen where policy is misapplied and an article sways in view. Consider how hard it is to debate about the 3RR, then consider how much time has gone by for which edits could be made to an article. For example, when a person is blocked (either for right or wrong reasons) the article can sway in view. Other editors take advantage of the time of the block as an excuse to edit an article as they see fit without worry of being reverted. The person blocked is now at a disadvantage. In my case, an entire article changed while I was blocked. When I was unblocked, I had to justify every change I made to the page, but every attempt I made was reverted. I was "labeled." It happens with others. It has taken time to pinpoint reasons why these situations happen. Editors blame it on edit wars and blow it off, but the situation is never really solved. To fight over once instance of being blocked is pointless. To bring attention to the fact that it happens over and over again is significant. Just like you say your not imperfect, well your not alone. These situations can be improved. The fact the debate of the 3RR happened is not mere coincidence, but it is coincidence in other events that have happened. From what I see on wikien-l, you seem alright. — Dzonatas 18:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to WikiEN-l. You will rapidly realise that, according to Jimbo anyway, process is absolutely not what we need more of. Just zis Guy you know? 18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm subscribed. What I see is people who seriously want to debate a subject. People say "get consensus first" and this is exactly what people try to do -- even those that want to be bold. However, the debates quickly diverge. There is evidence that such divergence discourages editors. We don't want them to leave, so guidance is useful. I doubt the aim of process avoidance is to create a purely liberal environment. Being a wiki, it is very liberal already. Instead of processes that premediate action, I support deliberation. — Dzonatas 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the ones who are clearest about purpose keep coming back to the fact that process is not only not especially important, it frequently impedes the fundamental objective of building an encyclopaedia.
Here's a thing: a while back I tired to include an explan atory paragraph in some of the notability guidelines to the effect that the reason we have notability guidelines in the first place is because without a certain level of notability it is unlikely that there will be enough coverage in reliable sources to verify that the topic is covered neutrally and without original research. And of course because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These attempts were reverted and strongly opposed. I still think they should be there. All guidelines exist solely for the purpose of ensuring that we meet the formal policies laid out int he Five Pillars, and far too much of the process discussion seems to obscure that and lead us down side-tracks. My view on much of this is shifting towards the Tony Sidaway school, which is scary... Just zis Guy you know? 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, impedes -- and what do we do with the process and evil votes that already exist? Someone suggested to nuke "Wikipedia:" namespace. — Dzonatas 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are online, could do me a little favour please? I've just moved a page, but I realised afterwards that I shouldn't have moved the talk page. The only comment on the talk page is about whether it should be a dab page or not, therefore it belongs to the discussion at the redirect page not the target. Could you delete the redirect at Talk:Mr. C and move Talk:Mr. C (TV character) to Talk:Mr. C? Thanks. --kingboyk 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...hi, JzG. I was wondering, since I like userboxes, if you could help me with something. I need, for one, the template name for that "More Cowbell" userbox that you have, it's hilarious. Also, I would really like to have my userboxes moved to the right side of the page in a box, like yours. Could you do that for me, or at least show me how, please?
hey man, youre not even giving me time to finish my articles before you delete them. im talking about the "R. Brett" article. Its Legitimate! he really is a well-known filmmaker in Southern Ontario! just give more time for the article to be edited. theres NO harm in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromley2 (talk • contribs) 23:18, March 3, 2006
I'm just the janitor, mate. I suggest you read the links I left on your Talk page and maybe work it up in your user space - tryy User:Bromley2/R. Brett and please please be sure to work in tangible references to significant external media coverage so we can verify the neutrality of the article from reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 23:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hey man, hate to burst your self-righteous bubble but has it ever occured to you that i mentioned this vote to several friends of mine and that they are voting the way that THEY feel...or the fact that some of my other friends who have WP accounts are at my house and voting the way they feel as well? You need to start thinking outside the box pal, trust me, no sockpuppets here —The preceding unsigned comment was added byWhoermaster (talk • contribs) .
So they are meatpuppets instead of sockpuppets? Thanks for clearing that up. Just zis Guy you know? 09:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to my recent addition to the above page you effectively reverted my edit with the following remark in the edit history:
Please! The nickname of a person from a piece of non-canonical fan-fiction? Who is going to look for that?
The fiction in question was not "fan-fiction" - The Dark Rendezvous book in which Scout featured was published in all good book stores, and in particular in a Waterstones in the United Kingdom. Second the book is not "non-canonical" - it is considered a part of the Expanded Universe and has been the subject of an article on the Star Wars website [4]. Furthermore, the novel in question was endorsed by LucasBooks, which should put to bed any questions of being either "fan-fiction" or "non-canonical".
To rectify this situation, I suggest:
You write to Sean Stewart, the author of the book in question, and humbly apologise for the gross offence you have visited upon his work by referring to it as "non-canonical fan-fiction" (email can be found on this website)
Watch both Star Wars' trilogies. I do not require that you watch both trilogies one after the other, but each trilogy should be viewed in full, e.g. Episodes I, II and III should be watched one after the other.
Read Sean Stewart's brilliant novel Dark Rendezvous. Cheap copies can be found on eBay.
Have a glass of Hardy's Cabernet Merlot. After all that effort you have gone through repenting your transgression, I'm sure you'll need it.
You may also wish to consider reverting your edit. I personally don't actually care, which makes me question why I wrote this. --New Progressive 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a character form the films? No. Is it a character referred to by name in the films? No. Is Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information? No. Just zis Guy you know? 09:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, I went to leave you a message but the DB was locked so I went to IRC. Just as I got in, the servers came back online and you left. Anyway, I wouldn't have removed the blue link, except for the fact that I had just tagged the page for speedy under WP:CSD G4. I'm not really sure what the deal is with that article, but apparently I was wrong about the previous deletion. It's weird; the first edit in the edit history was a section edit. Whatever, the author emailed me and it's all worked out. I'm still not sure that it meets WP:CORP, however. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right, I thought it was uncharacteristically bold of you. I usually wait till they go red (and Sleepyhead kills them before I get there as a rule). Did you see that 24SevenOffice is back? Just zis Guy you know? 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a section edit at The Shamen and it got saved as the entire article. I think it was more than just "maintenance", something went screwy. --kingboyk 23:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD? 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
AfD? 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
15:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
23:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
21:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)