Beware of the tigers! This page may contain strong opinions. You have been warned.

Please read my archiving policy and my privacy policy. If you need urgent admin help you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply, or to start a new conversation.

• Archive
• Archive 2: The Sequel
• Archive 3: Return of the Archive
• Archive 4: The Revenge - This Time It's Personal
• Archive 5, Jan 2006 or thereabouts
• Archive of discussions pertaining to Jason Gastrich
• Archive of discussions pertaining to adminship and requests

I think I screwed up on the Derny talk Page. I tried to archive by topic and I think I sent the discusion to the wrong page. --CyclePat 15:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Please, would it be possible for you to take a look at that? Thank you. --CyclePat 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but I really think a reference is superfluous in this instance. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reference may not be as useful as within a larger article (whereas you may have several paragraphs of text before the reference), and that it may be in this instance, excessive. However, someone that wants to have easy access to the footnote or to "quote" may now do so easily because the footnote does precisely that; it leads directly to the text within the article. I find it useful. Whereas before you would have to search the article. Hence it may not be as entirely superfluous as it appears. --CyclePat 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: Thank you for double checking the derny talk page. I was a little confused on whether I did the archive properly or not. This is because at the top, when you go in the archive it says "discussion" and not the "article". I double checked the archive you did for my user talk page and it appears to be similar. Thank you again. --CyclePat 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the ref to a page on cycling records because I thought we needed one. The archive was unnnecessary, in my experience we only usually do that if the Talk page gets to the "bigger than preferred" warning limit. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the block but I suspect we are now entering phase two of the Gastrich problem. This looks like a Gastich impersonator to me. This has occured on usnet too. David D. (Talk)

Maybe, I think it's probably WarriorScribe or someone having a dig. Cute, but not especially original. Anyway, let me know if you see any new outpourings from the good Doctor's sock drawer, won't you? The RfC looks to have come to a robust consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T'ain't me. I won't even have coffee with the guy...why would I pretend to be him? Nope...like I said, t'ain't me. Actually, given some of the structure of the comments, I suspect that it's "Bible John." - WarriorScribe 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's just a bit of fun, anyway, but I had to shelve my sense of humour and pick up the trusty Wikimop. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...and it's all good. - WarriorScribe 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've inadvertently blocked me twice today, when intending to block Unisouth. This person must, like me, have an AOL dynamic address, so please observe the guidance for the AOL range when blocking that user, thanks, jimfbleak 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this? I have not blocked any IPs in the AOL ranges today that I know of. I'm sorry if I have, but I really don't think I did. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've removed most of it; thanks for the "heads up". KHM03 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have the rollback button for just such an eventuality :-) I noticed another instance of fisheaters spam at the same time so I killed two spammers with one stone. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your info, I added info on my web page to clarify what other contributions I made to wikipedia through the years.--Pietrosperoni 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed username recently, too, so I know what you mean. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your simpathy, but your comment in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Diet undermined my vote, just a moment before the votation was closed, thus not giving me the time to answer. Now, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and those disccussion try to look for a consensus, not for the rule of the majority. When this is not present the default decision is to keep. There were 3 people saying (in various forms) this is a real diet, a real fad, and it is verifiable from three sources: human experience, amazon and the net, and as such should have been kept. In that instance your comment probably did make the difference. Is there anything that can be done to correct this situation now?--Pietrosperoni 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can still leave a comment there if you want, it's not against any laws. Honestly. But your edit history under your previous name is also sketchy (I've got about 500 main space edits since January 5 when I changed my account, and some thousands under the old account - you have only ever edited a handful of articles). There is also a deletion appeal process at WP:DRV. But even if your statement were included in the final weighing-up there is still a consensus for deletion, by my reading of it, and it's unlikely that anythign would have changed in the short period from my comment to closure. Maybe if the tone of the article had been less "advertorial" it might have had an easier ride. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most users have edited only a handful of time. I am ready to bet that the number of edits per user follows a power law. Making people like you who have thousands of edits a rarity. There is a time threashold in the voting process, but no quantity threashold. And to clarify, I tend to edit only articles where I have a much better than average knowledge of the subject. But I do agree that that article was ill written. Should have been cleaned. Said that I obviously do not understand the concept of consensus. A fifth of the voters disagreed. They brought reasons on their side which were not denied, and you say there was consensus.

Most? Perhaps. Most involved in AfD discussions? Maybe not. Consensus in terms of deletion means at least 2:1 majority for deletion. And actually the debate can be held open indefinitely, it just shouldn't be less than 5 days (unless the result is blindingly obvious, i.e. speedy keep or speedy delete). You are free to have a go at writing a better article, if you do I recommend you work it up in your user space (at User:Pietrosperoni/Primal diet) rather than going straight in as it might be deleted as previously deleted content. Make sure you put a comment on the Talk page to say that it is not a re-creation but a complete re-write. This is called being bold :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for the clarification on consensus. I'll look around if I can find an official statement as by now I am thinking about writing a blog entry. I am very grateful of the tip about how to rewrite the article. It was obvious that just retyping it in there would not work. I might look in the PD community if I can find people interested in lending me a hand. So that it is not the work of a single editor.--Pietrosperoni 12:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is always best when multiple editors work on something. You should also take trouble to ensure you cover any criticisms and problems, and maybe even look for some people to add a sceptical viewpoint. Wikipedia is about presenting the facts, not arguing for or against a given view (not that any of us are immune from pushing our point of view). Do you need the content of the deleted article copied to a user subpage? I can get to the deleted history for you if you like. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would help. Can I also say that you suggested me to try this way? There are also some other important info that have to be inserted, for example, I just discovered that the creator of PD was also the main character in the legal battle (won, btw) to bring back raw milk in California. The documents of that trial are available on the web.--Pietrosperoni 13:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done: it's at User:Pietrosperoni/Primal diet. Give me a shout before you move it back to main space, please. Also, please leave the header intact while you work it up, for the avoidance of doubt. You can cite court cases provided you can give a case number, there's an article on how to use references somewhere (probably at WP:CITE). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Amazingly official.--Pietrosperoni 13:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> A vote was entered in your name by an anon IP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature. If this was you, and a genuine edit, please come along and say so.

That was not me. Tommy 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in becoming a Deputy Director for the Wikihalo Project? The Neokid - Wikihalo Project Director talk 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it thought, thanks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The role of Deputy Director has now changed to Director (and the previous director to Controlling Officer). You are now invited to become a Director (Same thing, different name). The Neokid - Wikihalo Project Director talk 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clsoe out this AfD on Advanced Commando Combat System please? I saw you voted on it, there's clear consensus, and it's not going anywhere. Swatjester 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason it should not go the full five days? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Swatjester has removed some comments from IP addresses. Whether or not they're sockpuppets the comments ought to be restored and suitably annotated? --kingboyk 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cute vandalism has appeared at The Six Million Dollar Man. I thought I'd give you a nod and the honor of revverting it. --DanielCD 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear. What we need is "Windows for Grownups", an operating system that only operates connections to the outside world for those who have passed puberty by at least five years... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha You got to just love it. --DanielCD 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 55 and i thought it fitted the 'Trivia' section perfectly... my kids may have played with their legs like that for all I know... so funny, but why kill the fun? if you have a trivia section then you would expect trivia edits to be trivial and retained? I'd like to understand it a bit better, but I accept sometimes its beyond my comprehension.Mozasaur 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I just did the AfD nom right after you using jnothman's script (I assume you are too) so it was effectively doubled. I undid mine... hehe. howcheng {chat} 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-D Two minds with but a single script ! Are you doing cat:CSD? If so I'll bugger off and do something else. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Atlantium seems to be little more than an 'internet club', and I don't see that it meets WP:WEB. It has no territory and no basis at all on which to be considered a sovereign nation. I'd normally nominate such an article on sight. However, there has been a lot of "history" on this subject, and I feel I may be straying too far into a controversial area. (I've nominated Principality of Freedonia for deletion and have done some much needed merging of articles relating to Sealand and Dominion of Melchizedek). I don't have strong POV on these issues. Do you think Empire of Atlantium should be deleted? Should I just carry on doing what I think is best for wikipedia, as a non-involved editor, or should I leave well alone? --kingboyk 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if I know. I might AfD, because I find that AfD conentrates minds wonderfully and many articles are rescued from hopeless terribleness, but without hours of research I can't tell if this is real and significant or a massive ego-trip on the part of those involved. As far as I'm concerned individual micronations are almost never notable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you knew everything :P You disappoint me! --kingboyk 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:WEB is at least partly applicable here. They have 35 posts on their forum, and 752 Google hits. I'll nominate it. --kingboyk 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. And I reckon all 35 members are editing this Wiki entry :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. "And I reckon all 35 members are editing this Wiki entry" - yep, so expect some fireworks :-( --kingboyk 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Pit Full of Hungry Crocodiles --kingboyk 04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a few sockpuppets have shown up in the AFD votes, but there we go. I found two instances of people being informed on their talk pages of one of the AFDs without any internal wiki links. I didn't take it any further and don't intend to because it was on a small scale and isn't worth the fuss, and might have been an oversight rather than an attempt at disguising a vote stacking effort. What has a alarmed me a little is that one of those talk pages has had a batch of AFD links added in the http: form by the same experienced, vocally pro-micronation user. Why would anyone do that if I don't have something to hide?! Diffs: [1]; [2] (I messed up that one and didn't link to the AFD actually; this is where someone has come back and informed the user of the other AFDs, with - surprise surprise - http links).

As I said, it's only 2 cases so far so it's not worth making a fuss over. However, I think it would be prudent to be on the lookout for more since a few previous unknowns have shown up lately with rather unconvincing/generic 'keep' arguments. --kingboyk 01:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming your listing of the above article for deletion is some sort of joke - or perhaps just the result of ignorance ? Hutt River and Prince Leonard are familiar to most Australians, have received an avalanche of media coverage globally over 4 decades and have an exhibit dedicated to them at the National Museum in Canberra. --Centauri 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I have Guy's page on watch, lest anybody start making accusations!) Hutt River Province Principality is notable as far as I concerned (not that anybody should take my word for it) and I've voted Keep. However, 'Prince Leonard' is only notable for his role in that saga and ought to be merged and/or deleted, I would argue. --kingboyk 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go as far as to suggest withdrawing that nomination, especially as I've now merged in Prince Leonard. --kingboyk 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my bad. Fixed now. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, another editor thinks I've done something unethical and it might help if an admin put their concerns to rest. User:Wikicats posted the following to my talk page:

In your posting in Talk:Cat entitled "I'm restoring to my previous version.", it is signed Durova xx:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) but in Talk:Cat - History it says xx:27, 23 January 2006 Durova (→Conclusion). Can you explain this? --WikiCats 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I read Talk:Cat - History that post appears as 22 January. Durova 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Would you like me to get the people from Cat to look into this? I had hoped that you would have shown some degree regret for the mistake that you had made. --WikiCats 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked the page history and I still don't see this discrepancy (nor do I see why it would matter), but this person seems to be upset. Could you make sure everything is in order and communicate with them? Regards, Durova 07:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] seems to settle it? And who knew cats were so controversial? ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of that page it says Revision as of 08:27, 23 January 2006. On the posting it says: Durova 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

He said “I'm restoring to my previous version.” Then the encyclopedia was changed on the same day or the next day (at exactly the same time) without consensus or agreement as this was under discussion. This was the second time this has been done. I would like to work with this person but it makes it very hard when changes are made without agreement. --WikiCats 11:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history [4] shows that Durova did not edit the article on 23 Jan at all. At 22:29 on Jan 22 this edit [5] was made, which is I think the one referred to. That is within minutes of the Talk posting. Either I am being dense or someone is misreading edit histories.

My time zone is (+ 10). Thank you for your help and conformation that the changes were made to the encyclopedia within minutes of the Talk posting (without agreement or consensus). --WikiCats 04:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words in my mouth there. Durova stated that an edit was being made, and made the edit. There's nothign wrong with that (see WP:BOLD). My reading of Durova's edit was that it is perfectly reasonable, I saw nothing objectionable in it at all, but I have not gone back and read through the exchanges, having quite enough content disputes to play with right now. I see no evidence of dishonesty, though. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jason Gastrich. Reading between the lines it sounds like he is sending an army of sock and meat puppets to protect his hijacked pages. As well as that melodramatic outburst he is still thinking this wikipedia affair as being about atheists and unbelievers vs little innocent old him. The poor soul, it's tough being the only sane, loving person in the world. Sigh. David D. (Talk) 07:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So no change there, then :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, you might want to check the Kent Hovind page. As soon as the protection was removed, POV edits by anonymous IP users occurred again. - WarriorScribe 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have it on the radar. It's sporadic at present, which we can keep a lid on. I will reapply semi-protection if it escalates again, but there is pretty strong resistance to semi-protection for occasional vandalism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, since I don't do either of those (collect Star Trek DVDs or try to speak "Klingon").

Look at the edit record again. In the edit for Trekkie of 05:01, 28 January 2006 YOU put in

Asperger's syndrome expert Dr. Tony Attwood has commented that obsessive fandom may also be a sign of Asperger's syndrome, suggesting as an illustration that conventions of Star Trek fans or railfans might be thought of as "reunions for people with Asperger's". Some have seen this as a form of "mass diagnosis".

All I added was the word "inappropriate", which I only did to make the point more clear. Do Administrator's privileges include the right to make false accusations?

Since I evidently will have to jump through hoops to keep the undisputed fact that he said what he said from continually being censored, what, for you, is an acceptable citation of people objecting to it? Who qualifies? How many people? Where?

Those last are honest questions, not sarcasm. I am crossposting this reply to your User Talk page only to make certain that you see it so I can get the answers, since it is not clear to me whether you are Watching my User Talk page or not.

Davidkevin 11:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you put the same paragraph in science fiction fandom in the edit of 05:07, 28 January 2006, not me. Again, please don't falsely accuse me.

I did edit your phrasing into the Asperger syndrome article, but only out of frustration after getting no reply to my request that you do something similar since you didn't like my attempts.

Davidkevin 12:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you are perfectly well aware, what I copied in was a reduction and restating of what you had originally written. I have no problem with properly cited references, but I am not alone in having some disquiet about this "some people say" stuff. Nor do I share your interpretation of the single, very short paragraph in a very long document. So that's why I ask for citations for your interpretation that this is a "mass diagnosis" rather than merely an illustration readily understood by a non-expert aufdience. Sorry I didn't reply within your preferred time frame, with upwards of 3,000 articles and Talk pages on my watch list, some heavily vandalised, I do not always spot things as quicly as I might. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you accused me of re-inserting that phrasing later on, when I hadn't done so. I don't appreciate being accused of vandalism when I didn't write the words you subsequently accuse me of writing. Again, look at the edit record.

Davidkevin 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit of Tony Attwood of 04:22, 28 January 2006, self-described as attempting to make it NPOV, you wrote:

== Asperger's and certain interests ==

Attwood notes a strong association between certain types of interests and Asperger's syndrome. In a talk in 2000 he illustrated what he describes as the "courtship" phase of Asperger's by reference to Star Trek conventions, calling them "reunions for people with Asperger's" - a classification he also extended to train spotters in the UK similarly characterised [6]. These statements have been repeated since.

Although clearly intended as illustrative of a class of readily-identified behaviours, these statements give to some the impression of being a mass diagnosis of thousands of people of having a pervasive developmental disorder merely because they are fans of a particular television program. Attwood is clear that it is focus on the interest itself over and above the people who share that interest which he considers as a marker; nonetheless, these remarks have proven unpopular with some "trekkers".

Do you still see what you yourself wrote as acceptable? If so, then why not just place it into the articles on Trekkie, science fiction fandom, and Asperger syndrome? It states my objection and yet minimizes it in a way which seems to fit your view of what Dr. Attwood said, leaving the reader to make her/his own determination.

Would that be acceptable consensus?

Davidkevin 12:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you reinserted, and what I see as inappropriate, is the assertion that this is an inappropriate mass diagnosis. But in reviewing the text as I NPOVd it, I noticed that I had included the assertion that it is a mass diagnosis when actually I see no real evidence of that, so I struck that out as well. And the reason not to include it in the two sub-articles is that it is discussed in more detail at Tony Attwood, which is linked, and to include that level of detail in these other articles is redundant and also gives it undue weight - in effect reinforcing the stereotype, when actually it should be minimised and placed in context. I have nothing against expanding the discussion of obsessive behaviours in certain communities within Aspergers, but it is clearly not restricted to the trekkie or fandom communities. It explicitly includes railfans and there are probably others too (I guess some historical re-enactment people and classic car buffs exhibit some of the same behaviours). It's not as if saying you are a trekkie will lead to your being disqualified from military service on the basis of this nebulous "diagnosis", because it is not actually a diagnosis as far as I can tell, just an illustration. If you can show that the fact of being a trekkie has ever led directly and without other tests to a dioagnosis of Aspergers that would indeed be an important piece of information. And incidentally, I am a sci-fi fan and a railfan: I do not feel in the least threatened by these passing comments and am at something of a loss so understand why others appear to find them such a massive problem. But then, I wouldn't care if someone did "accuse" me of having Aspergers. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, in California, in recent years, it seems that the mere allegation of any kind of mental illness, without testing or courtroom response, can be enough for an elderly person's assets to be placed into the conservatorship of strangers, according to a series of articles published recently in the Los Angeles Times, so I think that sensitivity to the issue of mischaracterization is justified. While Asperger syndrome was not specifically mentioned in the articles (which is why I didn't cite them), it is no leap at all to see it being used for that purpose -- and it is entirely possible in California courts that at some point, someone will use the Attwood statement as justification for taking the money of an eldery hobbyist. Yes, I know that's extreme to say, but California courts routinely swallow elephants while straining at gnats, so I truly do believe that, while it hasn't happened yet that I'm aware, the possibility does exist in the (possibly near) future.

Anyway, just for the record, I'm not the one who first put the mentions of Asperger's into the trekkie or science fiction fandom articles. I was just trying to deal with the text which was already there when I first read them. Truth be told, I never heard of the terms railfan or trainspotter (except for the movie Trainspotting, which I've never seen) before getting into this argument, but my objection to mischaractization of that hobby as a pervasive developmental disorder would be and is just as strong.

How about this: I have no problem with your text as mentioned above in the Tony Attwood article. I suggest copying it to the Asperger syndrome article, and deleting all mention of Asperger's in the trekkie and science fiction fandom articles for reason of Undue Weight.

That'll work for me. Will that work for you? Will that represent NPOV consensus?

Davidkevin 15:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems? Can? So is there any evidence that anyone has every been discriminated against as a result of being disgnosed as an Aspie simply because of being a trekker? It really doesn't seem so, does it? Anyway, you are not contending that it has ever happened, so let's forget it. I have no problem with removing it altogether from [[trekkie] and fandom, and I don't think that Attwood was characterising any of the hobbies described as being evidence of a "pervasive developmental disorder", I think he was saying that people with one specific disorder may display certain characteristic obsessive behaviours which may be observed in these groups, and that some of the more bizarre and inexplicable behaviours observed in members of such gorups might be explained if there were a higher-than-usual incidence fo Aspergers in those groups.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. What you suggest makes perfect sense to me. Will you do it or shall I? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead, if that's okay.

Davidkevin 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Davidkevin 16:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this type of deal at all. Some of the problems: (1) Undue weight is true but it applies to all four articles. This is not subject to admin decisions or consensus: personal opinions have no place in Wikipedia WP:NOR. 2) Even if original research were allowed, this deal would mean that editors only have to add the same "information" to three articles in order to create sufficient leverage to allow them to make a deal withdrawing two instances in order to retain and even amplify the third.

WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF. I resent the implication of manipulative behavior, and ask that it cease. I created no "leverage", I was honestly trying to find consensus.

Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(3) This can never be called a consensus since it has not been discussed on the talk pages of the articles.

JzG, is this correct? If so, we can have the same conversation we had above all over again on another page, but what will it accomplish? The work of compromise and consensus has been done, or so I had thought.

Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave things as they stand now but if I see no citations from reputable sources forthcoming in two weeks I will remove the relevant unsourced material from the Asperger Syndrome article.

A threat to start another edit war in two weeks unless she gets her way strikes me as a likely violation of WP:CIV as well.

Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also having second thoughts about my support for the compromise on the Tony Attwood page, since that too goes against WP:NOR.

One more thing: I totally disagree with the characterization of this conflict as a "garden variety edit war". This is about one editor (me) removing original research and another editor (Davidkevin, the author of the original research) reverting the removal, followed by discussion, mediation, RfC and support from five other editors for the removal.

The last is a flatly false statement. Her RfC on the Talk page for Tony Attwood (which I am still not sure was properly administered) got three comments. Evidently she is counting the mediator who withdrew before it as a fourth comment in her favor (as she indicated on that page), which I dispute, and I've no idea who the fifth might be, unless she's counting either you, JzG, or herself.

Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AvB ÷ talk 03:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, take me there then. I have no problem following consensus, my main point here was that complete removal frome trekkie and fandom was justified, the treatment on Attwood and Aspergers (if treated at all) is still subject to negotiation. I see no evidence that the supposed discrimination has ever happened, as above, and I have never said that agreement between two editors is consensus, only that the proposed edits address much of my problem. There is evidence it has been said, but it is a minor passing comment in a very long paper, and I quite see that the lack of any citation for anybody else interpreting it as DavidKavin does is a finadamental problem here. But I'll head on over to the Talk pages and we can pick it up there. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my interleaved comments above.

I thought this was settled. I have no interest in continuing a dispute after we had reached a resolution, and I don't like being threatened by AvB. She has not mentioned herself to be a science fiction or Star Trek fan, has no posted credentials with regard to Asperger Syndrome, and has only been a Wikipedian for two months. Her expertise on fandom, AS, or Wikipedia seem to me to be minimal at best. (I've only been contributing to Wikipedia for four months, but I'm not claiming expertise with it -- I realize I'm new at this. On the other hand, I've been part of active science fiction and Star Trek fandoms for 34 years, and have suffered from ADHD, and AS to a lesser extent, all my fifty years of life, although only properly diagnosed six years ago. I do claim expertise with them, and my observation of fandom indicates that while there are likely other ASpies scattered among them, the great majority are not similarly afflicted.)

I ask that she not interfere, or be allowed to interfere, with the consensus which you and I reached. I accept the {{citation needed}}" notations she has already attached in Tony Attwood and Asperger Syndrome. In the meantime, I will continue to search for citable written evidence to back up the fact which I already know from oral conversations, that there are other fans who regard Dr. Attwood's comments, as minor as they may seem to you, as comments about fans as a whole.

Fair enough? Acceptable under established Wikipedia policy? If not, please advise me. I am trying to reach consensus.

Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, two people is not "consensus", it's just a private agreement between us that I won't revert those edits. But AvB has made good points, and to be honest not being a trekkie is a much better qualification for writing neutrally on the issue than being one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point had to do with knowledge of the subject: she has no idea what fans are likely to think or believe, whereas I do. Ignorance is not synonymous with neutrality, and extensive knowledge is not synonymous with inability to be neutral.

I understand that I could have phrased some of my attempts to deal with this issue better, but that does not mean I am incapable of working out something neutral as Wikipedia defines it.

Do you have any comment at all on any of the other points I raised, including in the interleaving?

Davidkevin 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time has come to correct David on a number of points. See response posted here for privacy reasons. AvB ÷ talk 02:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: updated version available now. AvB ÷ talk 09:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with that. All I was doing was trying to stop a revert war; seems on fuller investigation that it was David v. rest-of-world, and having spent some time looking I concur that the remark is original research without verifiable reliable sources that I could find. I think you have been very patient with him. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that my edit is being held to a higher standard than other Wikipedia articles or edits. If Dr. Attwood had said the exact same thing, only about "Jews" or "Muslims" or "Christians" or "blacks" or "Asians" instead of "Star Trek fans", you wouldn't be making comments about original research. You'd know without even looking that there would be objections to what he said. The issue is not that he said it about fans, the issue is that he said it about a group of people without regard to their individuality.

More about this, and other replies (one point at a time) on AvB's private (?) page.

Davidkevin 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are being held to the documented policies of Wikipedia. The fact that many other articles also fall short is not a reason why this should. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, this is by no means the only article where I removed unsourced material (negative or positive). You should really see TDC, Dr U or Tearlach at work. My Tony Attwood revert was only different in that reverted editors do not usually dispute important WP:NPOV components like WP:NOR or WP:CITE, and that subsequent discussion, if any, does not usually escalate to mediation, article RfC, WP:NPA warnings and admin involvement. (If you want to do dispute these policies etc, please go to the respective project pages and discuss your viewpoints there. Feel free to use the Attwood article as an example). AvB ÷ talk 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AvB, you keep posting as if all these warnings you cite, the RfC, and dragging an Admin into it were some kind of objective proof that I'm a Bad Person. They're not. They're all subjective, they all come from you. They are in no way evidence in and of themselves of my supposed perfidy.

This is what I was talking about when I said you misuse Wikipedia procedures.

Davidkevin 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's rubbish. I've read AvB's comments very carefully, it is very evident that he is not making you out to be a bad person, only stating that you are pushing a POV which lacks a verifiable evidential basis, and that other processes have come to the same concusion. Sometimes when a lot of people tell you that you are wrong, it is because you are wrong, however strongly you may believe otherwise. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Personal mode> David, I do not even THINK you are a bad person. I am not in the habit of extending olive branches to people I perceive as perfidious. And, FWIW, I'm not trying to make you look bad either. For one thing I'm pretty much useless as a Flame Warrior, I just don't have (and don't desire) the talent. Also, this isn't usenet - even if I were able to make you look bad, it would be pretty useless to do on someone else's talk page, let alone my zandbak1 page which cannot easily be found by trolls or other pathetic people in desperate need of fruitless conflict to feed on. This is Wikipedia; no one's really watching us. Basically it's just you, Jzg and me here. Lighten up. I may be interested in what you're going to DO, but I'm not interested in what you have done. I see you're already experimenting with the {{citations needed}} tag. That's good. I have learnt a lot from our encounter so far; I hope you can say the same. Then it hasn't all been a total waste of time. </Personal mode> AvB ÷ talk 14:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or headly or whatever. I saw on his talk you blocked him at 12:27 UTC. I then saw he had a talk page edit responce he made at 15:00 UTC appx. How can this be? Swatjester 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users can edit their own Talk pages. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morey was deleted a while back (in the mist of the LBU AfDs) and now someone wrote a new page. Isn't this against Wikipedia rules? Arbustoo 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, user blocked, notice left at WP:AN. Thanks for the heads-up. By a strange coincidence the new biog did not include any of the controversy details from the old one - who would have thoguht it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that was Jason though. Since you are able to speedy things, check out the nomination for Prays and Forty-nine character virtues. Arbustoo 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy. I would like to give the above software a test spin, but to use it one must be registered at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. "By default all admins are allowed, and any user can be added by an admin." I wondered if you would mind adding me please? I was going to ask at the Admins Noticeboard but I figured it better to ask somebody who has dealt with me. Thanks. --kingboyk 09:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to, if you tell me exactly what I need to do (does just adding your name automagically register you?) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, his username just needs to be added under 'Approved Users' :) —bbatsell ¿? 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and list alphasorted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy, much appreciated. I'll let you know how it goes. --kingboyk 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JzG, would you consider adding me as well? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actively so. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast, thanks mate! ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more please JzG.....=)Mike _{(T C)} 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I looked at this a while ago, but just didn't think about it again! Mike _{(T C)} 02:38, 6 February

• A comment: This does not mean I will add any Tom, Dick & Harry, the above are well-known to me and I trust them from their past history not to misuse the tools. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, seems I may have started a bandwagon. Sorry about that. --kingboyk 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I don't mind helping people I know, I just don't want to be seen as a back door past thge usual process. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm totally flummoxed by your message. What on earth are you talking about? --Centauri 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This: [7] and this: [8]. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been following that article. It helped shape my opinion of you, for one thing. If I can help, I will. But it's a difficult situation. I have actually started to type a talk page response on several occasions, only to realize how futile the attempt to help find some middle ground would be, simply because everyone has become so entrenched and distrusting (not without reason, I should add). As to me, most (but not all) of the more radical patients/patient reps view me as in bed with the prof as it is (the "professor-lover" allegation is not quite new to me). I am not, but I can see where he is coming from. Some mainstream leaders actually see me as a radical. I am not a radical either, but I can see where they are coming from. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle. However, the middle is not in view from the outside. The prof is a very influential person, his work dominates the literature and he's often asked by newspapers when they need the scientific angle. Patients are not (usually) published in peer-reviewed medical journals - the real world SPOV version of NPOV keeps their side of the story out of the journals read by GPs, specialists, etc. This also greatly diminishes the chances to reach the newspapers. Wikipedia, as a reflection of the real world, accurately presents the medical view prevalent among GPs, consultants, etc. - in short, it documents the situation as experienced by most patients. Including the fact that many patients (and some doctors and researchers) want the situation to change. What is not visible from the outside is the - as yet unsourced - information that a rising number of previously mainstream patient orgs are slowly giving up on mainstream medicine, the somewhat sourcable information that the diagnostic criteria are causing problems and need to be refined and subgrouped before long, and (it's true) the degree to which research into medical (as opposed to mental) etiology is throwing light on the syndrome. The painful truth is that Wikipedia can hardly allow more opposition info in this article than it already has. Unless editors find e.g. some really good references or iron-clad reports on the views of notable people like Lady Mar (i.e. the Countess of Mar, she's also a patient advocate and member of the House of Lords), Prof. Malcolm Hooper, and possibly patient org leader Jane Colby. If you think it might be helpful, I can try and write up a synopsis of the main factors feeding this conflict. (The full picture, even if only from my viewpoint, would need one or two books I'm afraid). I have access to the Prins et al. Lancet review, not sure why (I'm registered at their site but don't pay them anything). Perhaps you can access it yourself after registering (it's free) - see the pdf. Or would it help if I let you sneak a peek? OK hafta run (metaphorically speaking). Later. AvB ÷ talk 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting report, and extensively referenced (it will take me an age to follow them all up!). Of course, as you say, this will suffer from selection bias, in that few dissenting opinions get published (I'm used to that in bicycle helmet research) but it does look as if the issue is being misrepresented by some, since the report emphatically does not state that it is a psychiatric or psychological disporder, only that refusal to accept this possibility appears to be associated with perpetuation of the symptoms. The other side state that there is critique of this paper, but I can't find that at present. Ah well, in the end Wikipedia exists to document the verifiable, and regardless of whether or not you accept Wessely's ideas there is little doubt that he is (a) widely respected and (b) actively looking for markers, cures and palliatives. I don't see how a point of view distorted by obdurate refusal to accept anything byut a physical cause can inform this article any more than it already does. The controversy belongs at chronic fatigue syndrome - which name is of course taken by some as POV in itself. A real no-win situation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. FWIW, I felt really lame over letting you down so I just gave a little speech on the SW talk page (& hope the praise will offset my WP:BITE criticism). Let's see where it goes. I know so many of these people, and the things they have gone through. I can vouch for the moral fiber of most of them. But some will bite my head off nevertheless. I can take it from them. CFS/ME is an angry world - and not always without reason. AvB ÷ talk 13:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel let down, and I certainly don't think your comments were out of place. I am keen on following WP:BITE (I userfy rather than speedying trivial autobiographies, for example, and subst template:nn-userfy which I made for the purpose. It's hard to tell a newbie from a returner when they are all anonymous, and when all the posted links seem to come from One Click, for whom I readily concede very considerable personal antipathy following their behaviour late last year. Savagely attacking the janitor is a very poor substitute for taking the trouble to read the posted links to policy. But that's all in the past (for me if not for them). Perhaps the time has come for me to unwatch that article and leave it to others, although recent experience indicates that it still needs to be actively watched by a reasonable number of poeople. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Here's a PS: Critiques (1) posted here and possibly at Co-Cure Search for: The subject is or contains: Lancet. AvB ÷ talk 13:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the problem persists: the best-referenced comment can still only cite references for the problem, not for any proposed solution. Medical journals are always going to discuss patents' symptoms clinically (that is rather the point) and criticising them for that equates to "forget science, think of the children". There must be sceptical science, surely? Where does it get published? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_lighting&diff=38483202&oldid=38187968 . Given your note on the talk page, I thought you'd like to know. --Christopherlin 17:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. The spammer is also active on Usenet, at a low level: [9]. I trawled through his postings once and found simulatneous threads asking for keygens for AutoCAD and help with registering a patent - a somewhat bipolar view of the importance of intellectual property! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! --kingboyk 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out. Could you revert the last edit? I do not want to violate the 3 RR rule, so maybe you can make the edit? Sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 10:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on advice on this page, I have nominated it for deletion. Please visit Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What would Jimbo do? for a discussion. --Rob 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Guy, have to vote delete on this one. Reason's on the MfD, but I'll add that after the Jason Gastrich fiasco, you should be aware of the problems with the doctrine of Jimblical inerrancy :-) --Malthusian (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I don't take it personally. It's actually the opposite of the point I was trying to make, though - but then, as a Christian I am familiar with WWJD so I know it means an appeal to guiding principles, not to authority. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest plenty of other people would claim as Christians they are familiar with what the sayings means, and have a different meaning than yours (but would be equally certain their meaning is *the* meaning). Many use the saying on the premise that Jesus is perfect, and incapable of sin (so people should follow him as a perfect example). Therefore, putting Jimbo in place of Jesus in the saying, has a rather obvious implication (e.g. whatever Jimbo says/does is perfect, and aught to be copied). Rather, than the debating the meaning of religiously charged words, how about just withdrawing the whole thing, and if you want, you can always make another page to say what you meant, without any religious reference. --Rob 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want three different interpretations of anythign, ask two Christians :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want four, ask an experienced Wikipedia editor. Six will take an admin.

Wikipedia:What would Jimbo do? made me smile. What made me cringe a bit was Wikipedia:Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia and WP:CCW. AvB ÷ talk 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're Just zis guy, you know? Hello hello. — Ilyanep (Talk) 42:42, 4 February 4242 (UTC)[reply]

So, I understand from Dr. Halfrunt, is Mr Beeblebrox :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your deletion of obviously false articles, but what is the point of deleting additions i have made to articles which are worthy & labelling them 'vandalism'? Surely it is your deletion of these additions that constitutes vandalism? (Paulo Fontaine 10:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You work very hard to make it difficult if not impossible to tell where the nonsense starts. The same pattern is repeated time and again: a few minor factual edits, working up to some egregious nonsense, and then creation of an outright hoax. I only have so many hours to spend clearing up the liberal layer of bullshit you seem intent on spreading over Wikipedia. And if you do it once more there is an indef-block in it for you. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm nuts. But between me, katefan0, Ral315 and Jdavidb, we should be able to handle it. Very very good group. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather you than me, mate :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur completely. I was (at the mediator's request) trying to keep the personal attacks to a minimum, and you know what happened there. WooHoo et al are up to the task I am sure, I'm just happy I get to take a break from that insanity. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh. Good luck you guys. After a couple days of that I was having dreams of wikipedians stabbing me in my sleep yelling "NLP! NLP!"

⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have verified that there is a oopyright notice at the bottom of the http://greenvilletech.com/alumni_and_friends/history.html web page. Therefore, please go ahead and delete the page on Greenville Tech, that I started working on.

Sorry for the disruption!

User:Tom.Lineberger

No problem, it happens every day :-) I moved it to your user space so you can work it up, see your Talk page. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tom.Lineberger/Greenville_Technical_College"

Hi Guy! Thanks, for all of your assistance! I hope this reply is formatted properly and on the correct talk page.

Have a nice day!

Tom Tom.Lineberger 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, hearing you loud and clear :-) Let me know if you need help moving it back to the main space. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see that someone has nominated this for MfD. I'm sure the named fellow is very annoying, but pages in the Wikipedia namespace tailored to specific individuals are not a good idea. Rather than just having the debate continue, I thought I come and ask you to delete it. If I can be of help in "clue-batting" the problematic user at issue, I'll be happy to assist. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think JG is impervious to Clue based on current evidence (I'm guessing you saw the RfC). Ill-judged on my part, and I've removed it now, it was a term which made a few of us laugh when we needed a chuckle but I think the purpose is served and gone :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just thought I'd let you know that this article has been undeleted at DRV. Since there was a very strong consensus to undelete and keep, I haven't done an automatic relisting at AFD. However, as you were one of the only people who seemed to want the article deleted, I thought I'd let you know this so you can nominate it yourself, if you like. -R. fiend 18:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm happy to abide by consensus. Thanks, though. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the Gastrich saga I have a sense of déja vu with User:Basil_Rathbone. He seems to be on some sort of mission regarding Freemasonry, and his conduct has included whitewashing his talk page, which included warnings about his behaviour and at least one block message. I took the deleted comments and archived them, but he deleted that, then reverted after I put it back.

I could edit war with him but am reluctant to do so at this point, even before reaching the point of 3RR. All I can see written in Wikipedia against whitewashing one's user page is "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings" halfway down Wikipedia:Talk_pages. Without knowing that I have policy or any other editors behind me I don't want to war over someone else's talk page, and would appreciate your thoughts on this.

I have no other involvement with the dispute, by the way, so - as you can probably guess - I have no agenda against Rathbone, nor am I a member of the Silly Handshake Club. --Malthusian (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Another instance of the POV pushers, as noted recently: it's always the editors and admins who are letting Wikipedia down by failing to ensure its place in the sun as the leading source for emergent criticism of {insert establishment icon here}. Anyway, I left a message (which I have no doubt will be ignored). If you ened an uninvolved admin for a 3RR block give me a shout (email if you want).

On reflection, ahs anyone requested a checkuser on this guy? I am highly suspicious from edit style and especially from talk style and vocabulary that it is User:Lightbringer. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're not the only one to suggest a Checkuser, from what I've seen, but no-one seems to have actually requested one, possibly due to the current backlog - I heard somewhere that there's only one person who actually deals with WP:RCU? --Malthusian (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Masonic editors have made the same sockpuppet allegation. Since I became aware of him via his request for advocacy, and have no other involvement, I will not request a checkuser on him, but I will not take his side. I posted a warning on his talk page about his vandalism, but he deleted it. Robert McClenon 19:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more have been added recently, so if you want to take diffs over there (and maybe from the other socks listed at Lighbringer's page) you might get a response. In the mean time if you think a temporary block per WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT (and even suspected WP:SOCK) is in order I am happy to do the honours as a third party, there's ample justification. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Now moot per Template:Vandal:Basil Rathbone (see block log) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chuck_Hastings and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Baptist College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbustoo (talk • contribs)

I've warned him that unless he explains how he came to know Gastrich within a day of arriving and why he decided to take his side in the reversion of his talk page, he'll probably be indef-blocked as another sockpuppet. --Malthusian (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First talk-page edit over at Arbustoo's place is classic Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings' page says he's from Australia... so if his IP is similiar to what Gastrich has been known to post under... Arbustoo 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay a bet that Mr Hastings has a 207 IP and the wikipedian in Sydney is a bluff. How many new user know about categories. On the other hand gastrich had a love affair with them. Smoke and mirrors. i was just being polite when I accused the guy of being a meatpuppet. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, isn't this an indefinite block?Arbustoo 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If edit history or checkuser justifies it, yes. As yet it does not (no significant Gastrich-pattern edits to article space, few Gastrich-pattern comments in User talk space). If it is Gastrich I think we can rely on conclusive evidence coming rapidly (or abandonment of the account, as with most of his socks once they are discovered). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:35, 9 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 _{(T C)} 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]

As you are no doubt aware, Jason Gastrich violated the terms of his RFC by editing with another sockpuppet. I posted this violation to his RFC. What happens now? Isn't there supposed to be some sort of long block imposed on his main account? --Cyde Weys 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but it was probably the only good edit I have ever seen from him, it was even referenced, even if it was only a honorery proclimation. Mike _{(T C)} 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I have an email from "Hooba" insisting it is not a sock, but with an email address at wiki4christ.com - since that domain is currently 404 and I don't recall seeing any "get an address" links, I think I might have been assuming more good faith than was deserved when I believed this! Arbcom is the next step. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he email address is wiki4christ he is either a sockpuppet or meat puppet, too bad checkuser requests are basically a waste of time because of the backlog, but I am willing to bet it is Gastrich. Mike _{(T C)} 19:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the domain no longer returns an MX record at all, it can only really be Gastrich or one of his immediate associates. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be, most likely its a sockpuppet account. Maybe take this to AN and see what other admins say? Mike _{(T C)} 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't be bothered, he's wasted far too much of everybody's time already. I know it's bad, but Felonious and some others have agreed so in the end I think it was me who was out of line in believing the protestation of innocence. We can WP:AGF all we like, but in the end we're not required to ignore the blindingly obvious. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich now started, please pile in. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I now think of Jason as one of those rare users that can be banned simply because the Wikipedia community is fed up with them for wasting too much time that could have been spent so much better. Even if that were not the case, I have an argument I personally see as definitive: Jason continues employing tactics not allowed on Wikipedia. The Bible (his stated moral code) only justifies wholesale violation of local rules in order to thwart the enemy in a war. So to him this is a war of Christians against Wikipedia consensus (point made earlier based on "Glorify Christ"—I'm basing it on the bulk of scholarly work in this regard). Wars do not build encyclopedias. Wars are described in encyclopedias though, so maybe Jason will end up starring in a new article after all. Sorry, I'm lecturing again. See you at the RfA. AvB ÷ talk 11:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People might want to keep The Skeptic's Annotated Bible on their watchlist for puppets. The IPs User:24.205.87.206 and User:24.205.87.60 are marked as Gastrich puppets and the current trouble IP deleting and making changes is User 24.75.30.114 Arbustoo 23:39, 11 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]

So why the abandonment of the original pic from the traditional Gastrich sock boilerplate? FeloniousMonk 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, I think someone else didn't put it in for proven socks so I didn't either. To be honest I'm not sure it's appropriate, on reflection it's only pouring petrol on the flames; adding it during the active part of the sock war was just throwing bait for the troll so not quite the same thing, now it's time to pause and reflect I think. We're not supposed to be a lynch mob, although we're not supposed to be devoid of a sense of humour either. I'll leave it to your discretion whether it should be reinserted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it looks kind of creepy the way the picture stares out at you. I find it more tolerable without. David D. (Talk) 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I enjoyed the irony of it, but thinking about it, I'm coming around to see JzG's point. I'll rv my addition of it to hooba. FeloniousMonk 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the teeth that get me. You need shades to visit his user page.

So, shall I start the RfA rolling then? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least he still has them. In some parts of this country that would preclude his serving in his chosen role.

RFA or RFAr? RFA... just go ahead and add me as an oppose when you file it. RFAr... might as well start it, as the recent sockpuppets prove he's benefitted not one whit from the RFC. FeloniousMonk 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA might become a bit of a pile on, possibly wait a few months so he can get more experience ;-) David D. (Talk) 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets nom him for RFA anyways, it'd be interesting to see how many support votes he gets, then we can block them all as sockpuppets! Mike _{(T C)} 03:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's time for RFAr. It should go by relatively quickly, seeing as how everyone pretty much already reached consensus on RFC. At least this is what I'm hoping. Gastrich is so damn ... predictable. Every time he does something stupid and gets called on it he waits a week and then tries again. I actually only checked Louisiana Baptist University earlier today because it was Friday again ... and what did I see? Another Gastrich sock editing. Color me unsurprised and unimpressed. --Cyde Weys 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the stupidity that made this a bearable exercise I think. I mean the sock sending an email from Gastrich's ministry's domain asking to be unblocked was too much. I think it's the genuinely wiley ones that become tedious. FeloniousMonk 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone see a Clue lying around? I seem to have mislaid one... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tag User:Chuck Hastings as a suspected sockpuppet? His only edits were to defend Gastrich and when some questions appeared on the Hastings talk he disappeared. He had plently of time (a few days)to respond. The edit and run after a a series of questions, is classic Jason Gastrich. Arbustoo 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I need some Sage Advice re RFAr and when to move to the main RFAr page. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Hastings is back making edits, but won't answer any questions about his identity. Imagine that. Arbustoo 07:12, 12 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)

I notice you created the RFAr as a subpage. As far as I know, subpages are not created until such time as the case is accepted, and such pages are created by arbitrators (or now, by clerks). In addition, the material is not visiabel on the main RFAr page, so I don't think that the arbcomm has any way of being aware of the application. Am I missing something here? Guettarda 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was down to (a) cluelessness and (b) trying to get things together before jumping in. I have been reluctant to start this process for several reasons, but feel it has become inevitable. I think one or two of the Clerks might have the Power to make the teporary page go away :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Campus Crusade for Christ if you ran out of spam, check out this. Arbustoo 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy processed meat products, Batman! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 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]

Template:Olympic_games_medal_count

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. [10] --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]

Oh, really. This is too much. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:46, 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 _{(T C)} 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 (UTC)

are you completely clueless? you can't leave my material up there and take out my references. it's one or the other bud.

Good luck finding an admin who will block me for reverting your WP:OWN violation. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.) [11]. 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? FloNight ^talk 00:31, 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. FloNight ^talk 15:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sometimes we get it right after all :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any help with the case, let me know. I don't think you've done an arbcom have you? I've done 4 and I'm a mentor on Neuro-linguistic programming. So. If you need advice or evidence gathering help, don't hesitate to ask. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

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]

Good work by Calton. I've switched my "vote" accordingly. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:09, 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.

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, JDoorjam Talk 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 _{(T C)} 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.

Don, 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]

Could you help me with VinnyCee who seems bend on making my life miserable. Is once again vandalizing my talk page. Would appreciate your intervention. Thanks Nomen Nescio 18:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]