User talk:JzG/Archive 7

hello

Hello Just zis Guy, you know?

I've just seen your name of the Archive and reminds me about something :D, how are you? How is it going? -- Bonaparte talk 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Paleoliberalism

Excellent work on converting Paleolib's apparent mixture of OR and POV into a really interesting and increasingly well-referenced article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have any clue whether there is something citable for any of what he wrote? I have no problem with a paragraph saying that in the blogosphere the word is used as a synonym for libertarian -- for that, the blogs themselves are primary sources, I don't think there is an NOR problem with that -- but the rest of this seems to me to be either a recapitulation of libertarianism (without, of course, any criticism, because the name is so obscure that who is going to criticize it under that name?) or sheer uncited claims, like the thing about von Mises. Again, if there is a decent citation for von Mises having invented the word, that would be great, but my suspicion is that it is based on nothing more than this blog entry: "When the Mont Pelerin Society members began to be commonly referred to as neoliberals, Ludwig von Mises wrote in correspondence that he was a paleoliberal, in contradistinction to the neos he considered to be cowardly compromisers", posted by "bkmarcus", which just doesn't cut it as a citation. Nor is a date given: even if true, this might not be the original use, since von Mises lived until '73, which means that the Scoop Jackson Democrats might have been using the term before him. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Found bkmarcus. http://www.paleoliberal.com redirects to his site. "B.K. Marcus is an amateur political economist with no formal education in the subject. He is a house husband, a faculty spouse, a dilettante, and a layabout. Once upon a time, he made a fair living as a web developer." Well, fine, sounds like he might make a decent Wikipedian, but it doesn't make him citable. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bicycle safety

Responding to yours on Talk:Bicycle safety. --Christopherlin 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD tag

Where can I get an AfD tag?--FelineFanatic13 19:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wessely etc.

Hey man. I thought I'd take a second and drop in to tell you that you are doing a fine job with things. If you want me to, I can take up some slack from you so you can take a break for a bit and relax. I know that you've put a lot of time and energy into this, and I have every intention of seeing the article survive as intact as possible. Just remember, don't lose your cool over this. We both kinda got dragged in from different parts of Wiki, and we're both doing as good a job as we can. Keep up the good work -- and remember to smile! :-) --Vortex 02:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-Semites

The category for anti-semites is a bad idea, because you can't add references to each category entry. The list solves this problem, as long as enough people would work on it. Now, there is no place in Wikipedia, where one can look for examples of famous anti-semites. I think that's a bad thing.  Grue  14:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Up to a point: the most famous examples will be found in the article on Anti-semitism. It's not that I dispute the need to be able to identify examples, it's just that lists are prone to being used for defamation. Given that any list of notable anti-semites must include Hitler, anybody else on the list is arguably being defamed by association. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jake Thackray

No problem. I'd never heard of him until earlier this year. I'm going to have a listen to my dad's LPs when I go visiting for Christmas. I think your article might've had the different birth date in - if you've got a decent source, could you update the article? Cheers. --Whouk (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

On Wikibreak

Hey Guy -- just wanted to let you know that I'm on a Wikibreak until Tuesday due to two 12-hour work shifts back-to-back between now and Tuesday night. I expect to return to work Tuesday night or Wednesday morning ready to go! --Vortex 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Last Resort

Hmm. I can see your point about duplication, but i'm still not entirely happy with the changes. I'll sleep on it and see. Pydos 18:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit of a headscratcher. Actually I don't think the article is terribly helpful anyway, it's mainly a dicdef, but I think that adding things like warp cores to mainstream articles is overall not good for WP's credibility. We are too easy to dismiss as a bunch of nerds as it is :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_SWIFT_codes

Just a "hi" and a "nice wording"... sort of disappointed that AfD got a "no consensus", it seemed so clearcut to me. Best wishes. ++Lar 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I added a comment to the article that it was incomplete and non-authoritative, even that got reverted. I simply don't understand what motivates them! Yes, it seems like a useful list in the same way a piece of paper with phone numbers seems like a useful list until you realise that you have no idea how old, how accurate or how complete it is! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, not to start a revert war or anything but I think it is entirely justified to point out IN the list what the issues to users might be if they rely on the info rather than going to get it the approved way. I think I'll go take a look at the article again for myself. I am an inclusionist but I just don't see that particular article as worthy of inclusion, if it MUST stay it at least ought to be disclaimed... ++Lar 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One Click

The main problem with One Click (and many other advocacy groups) is that they thoroughly misunderstand science. Obtaining certain results or holding a certain hypothesis is not the same as believing in those results or being emotionally attached to that hypothesis. There is nothing to indicate that Wessely is acting out of personal interest. The One Click horde, however, seems to take everything ad hominem. Their attacks on yourself are completely unwarranted, and would have made turned a cautious supporter into a sworn enemy. Instead of respectfully disagreeing these people believe in debunking. Well, they will have a hard time with the Wikipedia NPOV army!

I say we should move that article and protect it, then have a carefully moderated discussion on the talk page. As I've stated numerous times on the talk page, well-sourced serious criticism deserves a place in the article, but not the rabid outpourings of the One Clickers. Why one click if two will do? JFW | T@lk 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've said the same several times. I am entirely in favour of making it live and seeing what happens. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The RFC on Dominick

Gee thanks for this info. I think it supports my suspicions. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me would you mind posting an alexis link showing your finding on my talk page? Dominick ^(TALK) 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in taking me seriously. I feel a bit vindicated. I appreciate you checking out my allegations. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the spam issues. I sometimes think I step in the proverbial "poo" a little too often. I think we should allow a cooling off. I do plan on deflecting issues to the RfC. Your fisheaters subpage is excellent. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am retelling the welsh joke to a friend who attends an Anglican High Church body under protection from Uganda.Dominick ^(TALK) 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Tiger

I stole your tiger, added a pic too. Thanks for a great wat to work on wikipedia. It is on my user page. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

CyclePat

I would give him one more chance to behave. He needs to be taught that he has to accept that not everything he wants is going to get into Wikipedia. If he does this again, then it's time for a RfC. Have you put his latest fork up for deletion yet? If not, I will. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the vote. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just tired of POV warriors. And with him it's annoying because he never gives up. He never thinks he's wrong. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want a real laugh look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Used2BAnonymous - I think I've removed links to this user's website from around 110 articles so far, and I'm not at all sure that's all of them! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

fisheaters

You may find this link helfull to see where his links are posted http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=linkdomain%3Afisheaters.com+site%3Awikipedia.org&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the most prolific bout of linkspamming I can recall. The RfC is amply justified, on present evidence. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Spam

If it interests you, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Generally speaking, I use this rule of thumb for external links: it should be included only if it confers an "intrinsic" value to the article. That is to say, the link should be particularily significant and scholarly. If someone things they should include 10+ links to it, they might as well write an article about the site instead! See you around! (And thanks for your note on my talk page - it's always nice to know other Wikipedians appreciate your edits!) :D --HappyCamper 03:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm drawn to the spam project. I've done a bit of work against the pink stuff myself :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found that it can be quite draining at times...sometimes I run into copyright problems because of them, and those are hard to deal with! --HappyCamper 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The worst problem for me is that I care about things like the 3RR, and they generally don't. That and AOhell's random-IP proxy servers... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: it's great to know we've got really dedicated contributors like you. Sometimes, we need to think about ourselves too. If it saps away the fun from working on this project, then don't do it. For me, I've rarely blocked anyone for 3RRs - even if I see 5 or 6 reverts, what I usually do is write a very stern message that a nondiscriminatory block is forthcoming - and this is usually enough to stop any reverting - if it is written well enough, reverts usually stop for a few weeks! For vandalism, I also block quite sparingly. Take a look at this page to see what happens when you try to communicate with a vandal. Also, take a look at this user - he/she was uploading attack images and recreating a deleted article repeatedly. All it took was one friendly message to get it to stop! Anyway, sometimes it's having a gentle but firm stance on things that makes it fun around here. Food for thought! :-) --HappyCamper 04:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a slow morning (4am and waiting for a server to finish doing its funky thing before I can go home and eat and sleep - I hate computers!). How to I get a nifty revert-O-matic, though? This takes way too much energy! :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your dedication again, we could request a addition to the spam blacklist, if and only if this continues. Dominick ^(TALK) 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll come back with more links. In the meantime, there's something called popups. I think Lupin started that - there's a "godmode lite" somewhere which gives you a simulated rollback - not quite as quick as the ones admins use, but still pretty good I hear. Talk to Celestianpower for that...also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject User Scripts. These should help vastly improve your RC patrolling I think. --HappyCamper 11:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally use the godmode light script, recently having switched from popups. The popups are great, but I didn't need their power. In case you hadn't found it yet, you can install it by going to User:Just zis Guy, you know?/monobook.js and adding

document.write('<script src="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"></script>');

--bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Now added, let's see if it works :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Back

I've returned from my Wikibreak, more or less alive despite how tired I feel. Having only skimmed the Wessely article, how do things look so far? Note -- One Click has re-issued their call to arms as of this morning and posted the full text of the fork. I'll be standing by monitoring things and making updates and changes as needed. --Vortex 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems OK so far. When I replied to the email form the woman at One Click she had the unmitigated gall to reply that any exchanges would be in the public domain. So I told her that in that case she should not have contacted me by mail, and banned the one click domain at my mail server. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? . - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship?

I've admired your work in AfD and was wondering if you would be interested in becoming an administrator? Please take a look through WP:GRFA and if you are so inclined, I'll be glad to nominate you. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would definitely support you if you accept. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto that. PJM 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guy! If you want to be Admin you have my vote. My answer is posted on my talk page.-- Bonaparte talk 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've declined once, but I will think about it, thanks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem Guy. I want to let you know that I am now cabal mediator. I make a pretty good job there. I solved one case :) My first case, I'm so proud can you imagine? :) Wish you all the best! Bonaparte talk 17:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the masterly handling of Simon Wessely, despite the aggro, is enough to give Guy the mop. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced I have the ability to remain above the fray. Actually I am absolutely convinced I don't! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't let that stand in your way. Remember, admins are just like any other user but with additional tools. They aren't expected not to be human. :) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Musilanguage

I'm not sure. It has a New Scientist link, but since I'm not a subscriber I'm not sure whether it's a book review or a real independant piece of media coverage. Is the person mentioned in that preview related to the book? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that your name has been mentioned publicly

Hi. You might want to check this article: http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/ I am not sure if you are aware of this already or not, but it portrays you in a very negative light, and is being picked up by some news sources, blogs, forums etc. You may want to make a response to it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. If they choose to think that Mike Vandeman is more credible than me, that's their affair, really. There's nothing I can do which won't make it worse, I suspect. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! You have a blog page dedicated practically just to you. To bad it's not all good things. Best wishes and may the holiday season prove to be a little nicer to everyone. --CylePat 14:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I try not to let it get to me. And fail, much of the time :-( Have a good one, thanks, Pat, and no hard feelings I hope. I have a great idea: let's begin the New Year with a new start. And here's a Christmas project for you: flesh out the motorized bike category with articles! I think we still need articles on the Singer motor wheel, the Tanaka Bike Bug, electric bike conversion (about which you clearly know a lot), battery storage density and so on. You have the library resources, you have the enthusiasm. Why not have a go! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, its not a blog page, its a "news article", its just that that one happens to be the most recent. In a week, they will have a new "news article" and the one on Wesselly (which mentions Just zis Guy) will be moved to archives.

For the record, I have heard a lot about Wesselly, as he was cited during the controversy regarding Australian Football League superstar full forward Alastair Lynch, who was diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and was told that it was all in his head and he was lazy. His issue raised the Australian public's eye to the issue of what Chronic Fatigue Syndrome really was, as, prior to the incident with him, Wesselly's beliefs were widely regarded as true. He brought to public light about the reality that it is not just "in your mind". For 3 years he undertook significant therapy in relation to CFP, which was very well publicised and documented, and then returned to front level football, where he became the leading goalkicker and a star full forward. He still has CFS but has managed to treat it. Wesselly was cited as the reason for the misconception of CFS.

Therefore, the One Click Group are quite correct with what they say, and the Wesselly article in its current form is hopelessly POV. There are documented references about Wesselly's false claims, and he is very notable for this, and has had worldwide attention for his claims. Whilst this is very negative, and indeed anti-Wesselly, there is nothing wrong with citing negative statements about someone in an article, so long as they are presented neutrally. Many, many articles present negative statements, and this is the correct way to go about things. Indeed, pretending that he was not notable for giving people totally the wrong idea about CFS (i.e. "its all in your head") is negligent. CFS is not all in your head, something which has been proven quite definitively.

This is a similar kind of issue as schizophrenia, where a number of theories were at various points in time pushed as truth but later proven to be nonsense. At one stage, schizophrenia was believed to be multiple personalities disorder but nowadays MPD is believed to be make believe. These kinds of controversies are important to science, and documenting them in detail is important to the encyclopaedia.

That being said, and One Click Group being a notable support forum for CFS sufferers, it does not mean that Wesselly is all negative, and his positive achievements should be noted as well. However, I question the accuracy of "a small number of ex patients" citing his push that CFS is all in your head. World Heath Organisation does not count as a "small number of ex patients". So the article really needs some major POV attention, and is not currently neutral.

That being said, you should still state what you were trying to do somewhere. I am sure that your aims were to try to help things. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not to be incensitive or anything to your current issue. But I can sympathise with the above case. This is because, I've recently started the article called Gallery of motorized bicycle which is in the process for deletion. My "beef," on the issue is that removing information that relates to an article essentially creates a POV. (ie.:CCM (bicycle manufacture)) within the alleged "main article" motorized bicycle, is purelly a step toward denying information and creating a propagandic article (or a POV within the article.) We've had many a discussions in the past. Anyway... looking forward, and trying to wish a Merry Christmas (hence keeping this discussion light right now)... Perhaps for the motorized bicycle article we can do like what is on the telephone article and that may solve some problems? --CylePat 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, Zordrac, thanks for stopping by. I need to get the original and my revised text together on my website to show what really happened: everyone is looking at this down the wrong end of the telescope. In the begininng I only looked at it because I saw an anonymous edit to an article which I thought was about one of the Methodist Wesleys. I read the text and was appalled by it, it was not just POV, it was defamatory. I set about trying to rephrase what they wrote, but they simply reverted it to their previous text verbatim, and attacked me as a Wessely apologist even though I had never even heard of the man before, and said so at the time. This has now been going on for over a month. I tried being diplomatic, so did William (see WP:TIGERS for his masterpiece). None of that worked. In the end I got seriously pissed off with them, because I am human and because I suffer from anxiety depression and because I sometimes have a hard day at work. As One Click have found out, I sometimes do lose my temper. And when I do, I have a fair command of invective. No doubt they are all little plaster saints.

The fork was created from external sources on 20 Novemner, it's been open to editing for a month during which time I have barely touched it. If it is overly gushing it's because I don't trust myself to judge what should be in there and what should not. I've dome some reading up (including the Lloyd report) but in the end my view of the anti-Wessely faction is heavily clouded by the appalling treatment One Click handed out to me right from the very beginning. If they had been constructive, working from the toned down version rtather than simply reverting to their attack, we would not be here now - and the article would be a good deal more sceptical!

I have every confidence in your good faith. Please do edit the article - take a scythe to it if you like. As long as it remains an article about Wessely and his work, rather than a hatchet job by those who very are in the grip of a deep and abiding hatred, I can't see any problems. But beware: Honey tried to engage with One Click and got the usual aggressive response. Don't get involved unless you are prepared to be boiled in oil the same way as I have been. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fisheaters links

Hi Guy. Can you let the "fisheaters" keep a couple links while the debate goes on, like perhaps one on the Traditionalist Catholic page, and maybe one on Catholicism? I think it would show good faith, and help towards resolving the issue. If they see you stand down from "delete everything" perhaps it will be easier to get them to stand down from "post to every page possible".--Srleffler 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not averse provided either it is done by a neutral third party or they take the time to convince me of the relevance. I've created sections on the Talk pages to discuss relevance. For the record I removed them because as anonymous edits re-inserting previously deleted content I assessed them as vandalism. Adding "Good link!" in the edit history does not really count as a realistic attempt to engage in dialogue :-) If you want to add the links I'll trust your judgment as to which articles they should go in and how they should be described. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted on Srlefflers talk page. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me here, Guy. I am glad for anything that will resolve this and let things move forward. I will engage on the Talk Pages and add links as I go. (And thank you, Srleffler, for taking the time to get involved in this dispute. It is very important to traditional Catholics everywhere and I imagine they all thank you, too.) Malachias111 15:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. It's nothing that can't be solved by putitng ego on the back burner for a while, I think. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable?

I made these conditions. I am leaving them alone on traditional Catholicism and Catholic. Am I being reasonable?

Let me repeat what I said elsewhere:

1. All personal attack cease, no more screaming "liar".
2. All reverts cease.
3. Any inkling of coordination someplace else ceases.
4. If any anonymous user adds the link it will be reverted.

What do you think? Dominick ^(TALK) 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As per above, if the links are added by third parties with no obvious axe to grind, I have no real problem. If anons start adding the links, or if they get added to more than a very small number of articles, then the spam radar will kick in for sure. My one caveat is that these are represented as the "traditional catholic" view. I have not enough information to judge whether that is as valid as, say, representing the Continuing Anglican Movement as "traditional anglicans" (which they are not, really). I will leave that to the article editors, and it's a separate issue from whether the links are included or not.

Read the rest of this talk page, though - you'll see that I may not be the best person to ask about how to deal with controversy :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

He declined anyway. More linkspam on Christmas Epiphany and Dispensationalism for those keeping score at home, but, I may just be lying. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that was added by Malachias111. See above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the confusion, Malachias111 is one of the admins on her forum from the fisheaters website, he is not a third party. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that three links is not excessive, but I will leave it to the editors on the individual articles I think. Do talk to Srleffler about this, I don't know enough about the histories and personalities to do more than janitorial work here. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Malachias counts as a "third party", although he has been more reasonable than some. I'm not sure if the concept of a few links got through, though.--Srleffler 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Any more than three or four and I'm going to get the Revert-O-Tron to them. I want to know, in each case, precisely why the site should be linked: what authority does it have, what does it cover that is not covered properly in tyhe main article, and (crucially) is it just a POV fork in disguise. I suspect some are. What say we form a review cabal? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but keep a few obviously relevant links like, say, from Traditionalist Catholic and Catholicism. As I said elsewhere, it seems pretty clear that their site is useful enough to merit a few links from Wikipedia. I don't see POV in external links as a big problem. It's useful for an NPOV article on a contentious area to have links to sites that explain the views (POV and all) of the various sides. There is no need in general for an external link to be neutral, or authoritative, as long as it contributes useful information that may not be on the page. An outside POV site typically does this, and doesn't interfere with the Wiki article as long as it's clear whose POV the site represents.

I don't have time to be in a cabal, sorry.--Srleffler 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I only meant for this one issue. Anyway, I removed the links from Christmas and Epiphany since I don't see the "traditional catholic" bit as relevant there. Other editors on Dispensationalism seem to think one of the two posted links is relevant, I'm cool with that, and I am happy to accept that it's relevant in traditional Catholicism and Catholic. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It works for me. I was wondering when I saw the edit comment. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is unacceptable, I appear to be agreeing with both sides. I demand a flame war immediately. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

hummm... ;\ Did you get any coal in you stocking? (LOL) Seriously though. I wish you good health and a healthy typing hands free from tendonitis or carpal tunel that way we may continue our antagonisingly stressfull yet fruitfull conversations. Cheers, and may all your dreams come trues (well... except for that deletion process on Gallery of motorized bicycle. b.t.w., good initiative on the hub motor I though it woul pop up red after I typed in my comments for the delete process) Anyway. Merry Christmas to you and the family! :) (b.t.w. does wiki give us an extra day for the deletion process since we had a holiday today?)(just kidding)(LOL) --CylePat 16:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

RThanks Pat, and a merry Christmas to you too. My voice is tired from many hours of carol singing, the kids are upstairs playing on their new air hockey table, and my new locomotive is a disesel, so no coal required :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to mitigate "create new page" beartrap for new users

Another place to mention guidelines could be when presented with the template for creating a new page - e.g. when you get the dialogue presented as per Joe not Bloggs:

• Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
• Start the Joe not Bloggs article or put up a request for it. ADD "If you are intending to write about yourself, please read this guideline first." Peter Campbell 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how difficult this would be. Peter Campbell 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're not the first to suggest this. I think the whole before you start page should be linked from the "create this article" page - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Biffeche

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for much appreciated barnstar - I actually enjoyed the work as well, so doubly rewarded! Dlyons493 Talk 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a Request for arbitration in the matter of the Min Zhu allegations, to determine a final outcome in this dispute, as I believe the edit-warring has gone on long enough. FCYTravis 05:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Userfy

Well, it depends really if the user has made any (non-vandal) edits other than to that article. If so, even if it's just a few, then I'd assume it's a legit user, and userfying would be a good thing. If not, and especially if the article contains linkspam, then I'd say this person is unlikely to be using WP for other reasons than self-advertising. Note that the former seems to occur far more often than the latter.

I was under the impression that the article had already gone through deletion (here), so the newbie had already been bitten, as it were. If you can bypass AFD entirely by userfying something, that would be preferable. Except in the uncommon case of linkspam. Of course this is just a rule of thumb. HTH! Radiant_>|< 10:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, it helps. I did right in userfying those pages (nauseating vanity that they were) even though the user had no other edits, because in the end we have to WP:AGF and the pages were not in themselves harmful, since user space is obviously not objective. Your point re linkspam is good, the ones being deleted look (in at least some cases) to be just that. I guess in future I will excise any evident spam at the time of userfying, and restrict the action to people, companies I will AfD in the usual way. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

rpg page

I see you suggested me to create an rpg translation page. I do have quite a lot of info about other sites and groups as well, lots of links too. However, i know ill be missing stuff, as i only know about games for pc translations, for example, even though i know games have been translated unofficially for consoles, and even, lots of translations not a lot of people know, by people whose names are lost... Itd also be interesting to add other languages, for example, but i can only talk about spanish translations... In any case, ill be glad to lend a hand if you are really interested, and hope others may add to it. --Immort 14:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not an RPG player, but it seems to me that there is scope for an article detailing how RPGs are translated, what the costituency is for these translated games, how long it takes, how many languages a popular RPG might be translated into, pitfalls in translating and so on. For example, are there instances where a phrase which can be reused in multiple places in English, cannot be reused in other languages and thus causes resource issues? It seems like an interesting topic. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, im not sure in how to do it, cos actually any pc game can be translated... you need a lot of people and a good programmer. I can certainly speak of my experience and about other groups and translations, but i guess this is what the wiki is about... people adding to your discussion. :)

But in all, i think a page of unofficial game translations (not just rpg, cos most of the games are translated the same way) could be okay. --Immortality 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to go for Translation (games). This is a separate activity after all, and has unique challenges. But do refer back to Transation where relevant. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

LYes, that's exactly what I had in mind: start an article on translation and the translation "culture" and see what happens... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, i see there IS a "translation" page here! should i create a special one just for "game translation" or try to add there and hope it doesnt get lost in between all the rest? :) --Immortality 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai

I don't for one minute think that Mikkalai is a bad guy. I haven't had much dealings with Bonaparte. But I can see what kind of editor he is. I just feel that it would be better if another admin took over. Mikkalai has become involved. It happens! Nothing to be concerned about. But when an admin gets involved in the fight it's better he forgets he's an admin for the duration. There are loads of other admins. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it happens. As soon as you start doing anything in a disupte one side will accuse you of favouring the other - if you get really luck both sides accuse you of favouritism, and that's the best that can happen! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree :) I'm really happy that I am sorrounded by so many cool people. Just zis  Guy, you know? is first on the list and he told me only good things. I try to put them in practice. I think I succeded it. Bonaparte talk 14:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement

This might get interesting.... :-D  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why?

Why the removal of the Fish Eaters links again? There are only a few and I carefully selected them. I don't understand this at all. Look at the links involved and please tell me what the problem is (I didn't add the rosary link, by the way). Malachias111 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence that the linked site has any authority, and the articles don't require POV offcite links ot maintain balance. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing "POV" about the articles. Check them out. They would please any mainstream Catholic (well, except Dominick). Malachias111 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The site is POV and has no obvious authority. The Alexa rank is off the "never heard of it" scale. You know the arguments, they were stated before. Links are in the subjects for which the site's POV is relevant - and I also delete other external links so it's not just this lot although the past evidence of systematic gross linkspamming does lead me to view them with slightly more scepticism than I otherwise might. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The site is a pan-traditionalist site. It covers "indult" Catholics and those who worship outside diocesan structures, and there are not only millions of such Catholics who worship in the traditional way, it is the historical practices of the Catholic Church. The site is not anywhere on Alexa because it just moved to a new domain (see the RfC for Dominick page). All of this is being talked out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#.22linkspam.22_request_for_clarification_of_policy We are talking about an entire library of Catholic sacramentals being linked to on an entry on sacramentals, a page on Lenten practices removed from the entry on Lent, etc. This is unduly harsh, in my opinion. Malachias111 23:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The site also has no evident authority (look at the Alexa rank, for example, foir both new and old domains); the authors do not state any credentials which lead one to believe that the site is authoritative. It also contains much which is POV and it has in the very recent past been liberally linkspammed; it appears to rely for much of its traffic (new and old domains) on Wikipedia. It's not as if there is any shortage of sites covering these topics, after all. I believe the current links are sufficient, and I am not convinced that the additional links (sometimes two to an article!) are justified in the context of those articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield pubs

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that, even though I nominated this article for deletion, I have decided to see if it is possible to save it. I have been through the article removing all of the POV and review-like elements and I have started to expand the rest. With a lot of cleanup I think that it could be saved (although I don't think that it is there yet). Anyway, please take another look at the article and see if my edits change your opinion on the article. Thanks, JeremyA 03:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. But the concept is a bit iffy per WP:NOT. Still, let's see. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Vanispamcruftisement

Why did you move it to the shorter title? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:47, Dec. 30, 2005

Cos someone said that spam and advertisement are functionally identical, and vanispamcruft is shorter. Switch the original and trhe redirect if you prefer, I rather like the longer term :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, can we have an edit war now? :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Also I figure spam is just excessive use of external links, often to different parts of the same site, and the actual advertising component is where they say how good their product or service is, using buzz-phrases like "streamline", "leverage", etc. This could be added to the page, actually. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:54, Dec. 30, 2005

Absolutely. We need to be the authority on vanispamcruftisement :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You Guys are crazy...  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fisheaters

For my take on the background see User:Just zis Guy, you know?/Fisheaters

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Malachias111

He's seriously over-reacting, and violated the 3RR on Rosary. Is there action to take on this? JG of Borg 15:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Malachias will listen to me, I suggest that you leave a message endorsing KHM03's message on User talk:Malachias111 in the first instance. I think he's lost his rag a bit and will be OK once calmed down, but this does nothing to increase my confidence in his judgment re the disputed site. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I took down links that had Alexa ratings in the millions? Because I took down ones that had Wikipedia as their first referrer? Those are the reasons why the Fish Eater site links are being taken down. All of this information was included in the RfC Dominick, but was ignored. How else not to allow it to go ignored but "childish tactics"? What am I supposed to do? Talking and asking questions doesn't seem to work. Going over to the Fish Eaters forum and trying to put in a good word for Wiki as you requested doesn't seem to work. A FEW links were added and they are all taken down, all for reasons that only apply to the Fish Eaters website. There is no good explanation for that. Malachias111 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because youappear to be edit-warring and possibly trying to make a point. Whether or not you actually are. If you'd like to list the links you removed with the reasons, I suspect that those of us who actively oppose linkspam will be supportive. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why am I the one considered to be "edit-warring" when I put up a link, someone takes it down, I put it up, and they take it down again? Who's the "warrior" in such a situation? I put up a very few links on a few select pages. I don't see the problem. Malachias111 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Because you also take down links that are more relevant, causing others to have to revert that vandalism as well. See my suggestion on the RFC. JG of Borg 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, Malachias appears to be edit warring and violating WP:POINT, whether or not he is. There are plenty of people involved now, plenty of disinterested third parties with real edit histories - i.e. not puppets. Malachias, you need to trust the process. The more you stir the pot the less weight will be assigned to your opinion, in my experience. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

When I took down the links that are being deemed "more relevant" (even though they are not; a simple comparison of the KofC Rosary page with the Fish Eaters one clearly shows which is the better page) I didn't re-add the Fish Eaters link. I took down links using the same criteria used in judging the Fish Eaters links (Alexa traffic, Wikipedia referrals) -- even though the Fish Eaters site just moved to its own domain a few weeks ago. The old domain statistics which were posted in the RfC Dominick shows what the deal is, but noone seems to want to look. The offer from U2BA to give her passwords to an admin to look at the statistics were ignored.

Look, U2BA DID add a bunch of links, obviously "too many" by Wiki standards (which seem to be more than a handful unless you're the Catholic Encyclopedia, catholic.com, ewtn.com, or americancatholic.org). She did not know she was breaking any rules, which is obvious because she brought up an RfC against Dominick for taking down the links, revealing a slew of links that had been, in her opinion, vandalized. Then she gets labelled a "linkspammer" and every admin in town goes after the site and takes down ALL links. She tries to get clarification like I'm trying to do now. I asked for clarification of policy in many different ways, got nothing specific, said I would add a FEW links and hope things work out. They all got deleted--and they all got deleted for reasons that don't work against other websites that are deemed "more relevant" even though they contain FAR less worthy and interesting information. "Relevant"? To who? That's a serious judgement call, totally POV. And you can't expect a trad site to have the Alexa rankings and money that catholic.com (a private commercial enterprise that has as much authority as Fish Eaters) has.

Here's the thing: even if those "acceptable sites" did contain a lot of worthy and interesting information for mainstream Catholics (and they do), they aren't relevant for traditional Catholics (and there are millions of us who follow the 1962 calendar and Missal, or older ones--inside and outside diocesan structures). On pages of interest to "Catholics," the traditional Catholic practices should be linked to just like the ones are for the people who use the 1970 calendar. That site is a pan-traditionalist site that welcomes ALL traditional Catholics, whether they're indult Catholics, SSPXers, sedes, or whatever. Its being blackballed is unfair and a blow to Wikipedia's goal of being a total resource of relevant information.

By the way, I looked up StThomasMore at the Fish Eater forum. He's no "shill"; he's a 12 year old kid, born in 1993 -- and there is not a thing at that forum that tells him to go do anything here. Malachias111 18:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You are conflating three issues.

First, the fisheaters site. I am sceptical of any links to that site by now, for the reasons stated at User:Just zis Guy, you know?/Fisheaters and elsewhere. There are two active RfCs, I think we should all wait for the outcome of those before adding any of the links back at all, and to my mind any links to that site, with its off-the-scale Alexa rank, hardly any sites linking in off Wikipedia and no evident claim to authority, are looking hard to justify.

Second, the removal or addition of other links, which has the appearance of edit warring or WP:POINT. Whether it is either is largely irrelevant. All these articles have active editor communities, I see no problem with pruning links (anything but!) however there is an ongoing dispute between you and other editors, so it may be more prudent to leave comments on the Talk page saying what you think should be removed and why, and wait for at least some discussion before boldly hacking away at the vanispamcruft.

Third, the issue of factional religious differences. It's not that I don't understand the point you're trying to make re "traditionalist" Catholics, we have the same issues in the Anglican communion (joke: a Welshman is rescued from a desert island. He gives his rescuers a tour of the island, his hut and the two chapels he has built. "But why two chapels?" asks the Captain. "This is the one I go to", replies the Welshman, "and that's the one I don't go to"). We have congregations in my own Diocese who refuse to use anything other than the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. But for the most part, to discuss these differences outside of the context of articles specifically addressing the different opinions (as in Traditional Catholicism or Continuing Anglican Movement will tend to confuse rather than enlighten a general readership. Better to allude to the differences and link to the Wikipedia article which discusses them in detail. We don't allow POV forks within Wikipedia, and what you are arguing for appears to be no different: a link to a partisan presentation which does not reflect the majority view, or the view discussed in the article. Imagine how you would feel if a fundamentalist Baptist insisted on adding a link to Transubstantiation, to a page stating that in the opinion of hios Church the doctrine was heretical.

That said, and to return to point 1, if there is a genuinely substantial traditionalist Catholic movement, as you say, which differs on as many issues as you appear to argue, then I have extreme difficulty believing that a site with an Alexa rank in the hundred thousands, a forum of only 300 members and with Wikipedia accounting for fully one third of all inbound links, is genuinely the most authoritative resource for it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

First to clarify a point: the sites linking in and the Alexa ratings you are looking at do not accurately reflect the Fish Eaters website because the site just moved from kensmen.com/catholic/ to fisheaters.com. The relevant ranking isn't 400,00 something, it's 200,807 [1] (the site, acc. to Alexa, is 4 weeks old, and it is being measured over Christmas). The site's highs meet the "relevant sites'" lows (for ex., see [2] and [3] and [4]. Those sites are americancatholic.org, Crisis Magazine, and Envoy Magazine -- all sites that Dominick, for ex., would consider "national" and "not a monograph" and all that stuff. So point 1 and the return to point 1 are moot here.

I will interleave comments here, against usual Wiki practice, for clarity.

If you read the comments at User:Just zis Guy, you know?/Fisheaters you will see that I also looked at the old domain name. In detail. The assessment is, as far as I can make it given just how badly the linkspammers annoyed me, accurate and fair. Note that the transfer of traffic from the domains is explicitly discussed, and I have used identical tests on both new and old domains. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Wikipedia is a (if not the) principal promotional medium for fisheaters.com. Since much of the traffic appears to originate with Wikipedia, and the argument is not in the main about traffic but about apparent authority (i.e. some random person with a fringe minority view versus. the Catholic Encyclopaedia) the comparison is mott, but in any case you will see elsewhere that I am going through all those articles suggesting wholesale reductions in the numbers of external links per my understanding of WP:EL (to say nothing of WP:ISNOT)..

Second: I read the POV Fork link you provided, but don't understand it or what it has to do with a few links to the Fish Eaters site. I am not being a wisenheimer or anything; I really don't get it. The Rosary is prayed by mainstream Catholics, Anglicans, and also by traditional Catholics. I don't see why all of their views can't be represented on a page on the Rosary. Same with Advent, and Lent and all the other stuff.

They are. In the article. That's the point. Fringe viewpoints, or dozens of "me-too" sites, should not be linked. Excise as many as you like, I'll be happy, but note the suspicions above and for preference discuss the removal with the editor communities on the articles first.

Diocesan bishops and the local branch of the Fraternity of Rapping Priests aren't going to link to a traditional Catholic website. It will have lower rankings than EWTN and catholic.com and all the other sites that have money behind them. That's just the way it is (for now anyway). And as to authority, it's a pan-traditionalist site, and the traditionalists are, by their nature, suffering a crisis of authority. The priestly fraternities are at odds with each other, but the site is for lay Catholics and takes no sides in the "where to worship?" debate, and the traditionalist movement is big and growing all the time. On top of that, the information is good for even historical purposes.

You cite millions of traditionalist Catholics. There are fewer than 300 external linnks to fisheaters (on new and old domains combined) excluding Wikipedia. Catholic.org has over 380,000. My own private site, for which I make no claims whatsoever and which is hosted from a homebrewed PC in my under-stairs cupboard and hooked up to my ADSL line, scores over four and a half thousand links according to a quick check, and I have never actively solicited links, that's just word-of-mouth. It doesn't look as if fisheaters is widely discussed or widely linked. And Wikipedia is not the way to fix that (see WP:ISNOT).

I like your joke (reminds me of the one about the southern Baptists!), but this site, as said, is pan-traditionalist and includes all trads (those who hold the Faith as it had always been preached and who worship in the ways all Catholics did before the changes after the Council), so while Missal-picking and where to worship are discussed at the forum (among people with totally different views), no viewpoint is pushed at the site itself aside from the thing that binds all trads together -- that the traditional Mass and sacraments have to be preserved.

As to the Baptist and a link refuting transubstantiation, I expect opposing views at Wiki as long as they're labelled correctly. I thought that is what this encyclopedia was all about -- to be one where, when it comes to controversial things, controversial opinions are expressed and rebutted and presented as viewpoints rather than "the way it is." At the traditionalist Catholic entry there are sites listed that oppose tradition, for ex., and I've never tried to remove any of them. I didn't expect Wiki to be the Curia's pipeline to the world. I expected it to be balanced in presenting different groups' ways of doing and seeing things. That's why all of this is bumming me out --esp. because it is traditional Catholics (and Orthodox) who came up with the Rosary, Advent, Lent, Christmas, Easter, and everything else Catholic that has an entry.

The point is that if there is a significant dissenting view it should be discussed or Wikilinked fomr the article. If there is a fringe dissenting view it should be discussed very briefly in the article. In either case the idea is to accumulate the information here, not divert readers away to other sites. Especially when there is no indication that those sites are widely regarded as authoritative.

Also, I hope noone holds StThomasMore against Fish Eaters. I looked him up and he's just a kid (12 years old), and nothing at that site or forum directs anyone to do anything to any specific articles (though it does encourage trads to become editors). Malachias111 20:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have ignored that whole issue, it's a distraction. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=link:8m8-radxZdEJ:www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ Impressive!

Linkspam

Discussion re User talk:Just zis Guy, you know?/Linkspam

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, JzG/Archive 7! A well deserved pressy! --Santa on Sleigh III 12:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooh lovely! Just what I wanted :-) Thanks, Santa! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

De Havilland Aircraft Heritage Centre

Never been, but somewhere I was aware of. To be honest I've yet to get along the road to East Fortune! wangi 21:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I used to volunteer there years ago. By the way, that picture is a Dove, not a Mossie :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I was on autopilot when I left the comment ;) All the best for the New Year/wangi 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The new year has start!

The new year has started. Well in 3 minutes. Best wishes and good health.

File:Moving-camera.gif

Warning: You are under my surveillance

! Cheers

Any predictions? --CylePat 04:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I predict that I will be adding to the articles on Handley Page aircraft, riding my bike more, and trying to spend less time on WP and Usenet. And failing :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Read your email

I sent ya one. Read it. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I figured it out! It's statistically proven.

This image demonstrates your risks of collisions and conflict with being user:CyclePat

It's all in the alias I chose for my name! And since I'm from canada it's 3.5X more chances of collision, compared to the US, which is 1.8X. (Darn! It's unavoidable. 3.5x1.8x"frustration"= 6.3xfrustration of collision risk!!! LOL  :) --CylePat 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There you go, you see - Science has an amswer for everything :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

mikka is gone

mikka is gone. How many times I told him to stop it? Bonaparte talk 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that's good. I believe Mikka is fundamentally sound, and was ploughing a lonely furrow in fighting what looks to me like POV vandalism on Anti-Romanian discrimination. What's more disturbing is that he is the third or fourth admin in recent days I've seen driven into leaving or taking extended wikibreaks by sustained provocation, usually by anonymous trolls. That is not good. And I suspect you know how he feels, being blocked for what he believed were good-faith attempts to undo POV vandalism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know exactly since he blocked me for one week for issue content. I told to Izehat also this:

If mikka doesn't come back is a great loss. Except the fact that he had with me some kind of relation, you know when he blocked me for content issue for one week and you unblocked me, he still let 48 h, I think he should reconsider and come back again. He should let aside the proud and to be glad that he can contribute to Wikipedia's enlargement. This is the aim isn't it after all? He felt frustating for revert war. Me for example I was never blocked for 3RR but I was always blocked for content issues. I believe that he will reconsider. Bonaparte talk 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you believe this? Mikka actually condemns romanians. I don't know what is his real problem but certainly he has some problems with romanians. He is too much politically involved. I don't know what his backgrounds are.

Look what he said there:

I will not type a single word elsewhere until the disgusting behavior of a big group of Romanian wikipedians will be discussed by a third party and condemned. While looking aroung my block I wandered to Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board and find the talk there simply sickening. It is just a snake's nest, with hatred oozing from their fingertips.Mikkalai

He just called romanians using such bad words. I don't like his attitude. He should change first. He proofs no respect for Romanian nation. He should appologize. Bonaparte talk 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Look here at Transnistria http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33394951&oldid=33357067 he was warned by other admin: "Miky stop" [[5]], he didn't. He made edits then he blocked the page. It looks bad. Bonaparte talk 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's bad. Assuming the links were to articles valid to the article (which I don't profess to understand in any depth), the BBC is generally regarded as a highly credible and reliable source. It would be good to know Mikka's reasoning for removing the links. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy! Thanks for contacting me. I also believe that Mikka is a good-faith editor, but I think the 3RR is very much a "cooling-down" policy rather than a justice-based policy. For that reason, I don't really see 3RR blocks are being a punishment or judgement call, but as the policy states - an electric fence to prevent edit warring. And I believe that by reverting to another version, that was also POV, Mikka was engaging in edit warring. He wasn't reverting vandalism; rather, he was reverting to a version that he felt was better. That's an edit war. Edit warring can be in good faith, no doubt about that - in fact, most of it is. But a lot of respectable users were blocked under 3RR and it shouldn't be that big a deal. Additionally, Mikka has been involved in some questionable actions recently, in the name of "combating trolls". This includes quite stringent unilateral user blocks and page protections. Thanks (and I appreciate your involvement in this case - I think it's good to have a watchdog for admin actions, which is why I've proposed the Wikipedia:Ombudsman). Ronline ✉ 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the original one which was cited was questionable (the removed text looked very much like vandalism), but his other 3RR violations are definitely not in the same category. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Great difference between let's say Jmabel and Mikka, Jmabel had never used block function and still he is a great contributor to Wiki and Mikka like "gigi duru" who used blocking function (applied to pages and users as well) to push his POV fork. Yes, ask me about the translation...:) Bonaparte talk 14:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember when I was together with other users labelled as "koncenii" and mikka actually put fan on flames? Here is the translation from another user who is actually russian from Moldova so nobody can deny his authorithy in the matter, from user:serhio ""Koncenii" comes from Russian and mot-a-mot signifies "finished" (in sexual plain). Well, is not sperm, but is linked with sperm :)" [[6]]. Who blocked mikka? me! the one who was labelled as "koncenii". So much to tell about his fairness and judgement. You do remember do you? Bonaparte talk 15:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, "конченый" ("Koncenii") towards a person means "goner", as an adjective a word this root can not mean anything else, nothing vulgar, sexual, but '''nothing pleasant either'''. There is a couple morphologically close words which can be connected but not this one. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte, do not add accents I did not place. I do not defend Mikka calling you "hopeless" in Russian, nobody expects others to know Russian here or tolerate personal remarks, but this was not unparliamentary language.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 17:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it well. As I said at the time, I think he has shown questionable judgment on occasion. I don't think he's a bad person, but there is no doubt that some sanction is justified by his recent actions, which seem to indicate anger more than anythign else. He has been provoked, of course. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The link that he deleted at Transnistria http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/3586815.stm

Misery in a pariah state

Transdniester is a region of the country of Moldova which broke away in the dying days of the Soviet Union. Because of its unrecognised status, it receives very little help from the outside world and its children are the first to suffer....

Russian presence

Transdniester is a pariah state and gets very little international aid....

Suspicion

President Igor Smirnov is suspicious of outsiders and believes the West has only one agenda, the withdrawal of Russian troops....

Smuggling company

Rrecent report funded by the British Department for International Development says that "Transdniester is a smuggling company masquerading as a state"....

Now compare all these evidences and huge others as well, that he deleted in time one by one, with his "peace keeping force" Russian troups! Malicious change of meaning of course. Bonaparte talk 12:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WebEx

I hope that your comment on WebEx talk isn't a sign that your bowing out of this case. We need more editors working on it not less, (my good judgment aside!).--FloNight 22:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm just deferring to your judgment of what is and is not proven by the papers supplied. I strongly suspect we will have another battle later, when Larvatus realises that the change is just to allow the addition of "and Erin Zhu" to one sentence... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Just zis Guy, you know?/AfD

This page says you consider lists to be cruft because they don't give more info than a category. How about featured lists like List of United States presidents and others? I think you might need to rephrase your opinion on lists to address these. The combine useful information in a way which doesn't require the reader to skim numerous articles for a single fact and they're certainly not indiscriminate. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that does need work. I'll do the needful, thanks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I still don't fully agree with you. Some people create categories because they simply don't like lists, so the existence of a category isn't enough. Especially when the list contains info which isn't easily found through categories, like the people with the highest cricket scores. At least your view is now much more refined. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Signature on AfD=

Hello! Why have you started to use the Union Jack in your signature on AfD pages? It makes our signatures look very similar! I've performed several double-takes this afternoon when reading through comments to see those at first glance signed by me without my knowledge. I have also found a couple of comments that someone has created as unsigned but later attributed to me, although this was not the case, so I don't mean to be picky. I've chosen another image for the timebeing, until you reply. Best wishes for the New Year! Regards, -- (aeropagitica)  15:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm a Brit and lots of other people seem to be choosing national flags in sigs for exactly the reason you state - it makes it easier to pick things out in discussions :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's cool. Association seems to have such a stronger appeal to readers. For example, now that I know you are Briton, I know that you can be associated with various cultures, etc... It's great for stereotyping someone a lot easier! Like... "Oh! He's just a crazy Brit" or "The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."

in my case, "I'm canadian... hey!" I might do the same if I knew how to make it all automatic. (I'll read into it and maybe tomorrow you'll see a Canadian Flag on my signature) But I can understand your possible correlation with this quote from the movie wikiquote:The English Patient "We didn't care about countries did we? Brits, Arabs, Hungarians, Germans. None of that mattered, did it? It was something finer than that." --CylePat 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's why I'm planning on adding the US Navy jack to my signature. DONT TREAD ON ME! ;)  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is called brand mark or branding I suppose. E.g. this is from Admin Ronline Ronline ✉ where he associates two flags. Romania will join EU in less then 12 months. Bonaparte talk 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

humm! Branding... I heard they still do that with cows. Specially recently with all the political scandal of closed beef trading between Canada and the US. That way you know if it was Canadian Mad cow desease or British!!! --CylePat 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

aeropagita, to recognize your own comments easily, I highly recommend the technique of using span tags as documented in User:HorsePunchKid. User:Quarl/advanced_sig.js might be useful. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 20:54Z

Jewish lists and categories

Hello, I have made a compromise proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession#Proposal_to_make_Jewish_lists_and_categories_historical_only. Regards Arniep 23:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy. People also argue about who is or who is not English, Welsh, British, Czech, Russian, or Ukrainian, but we are not proposing those lists for deletion. Arniep 23:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have suggested we use the Jewish Encyclopedia as a guide for inclusion in lists or categories. Thanks Arniep 23:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the point is it is ludicrous to say that Felix Mendelssohn has no place in Jewish history. User:IZAK is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water by saying that because reform, secular and some Orthodox Jews disagree with strict Orthodox Jews on who is Jewish there should not be any lists of people that are notable in the history of the Jewish people. This is just nonsense and it is a proposal that frankly if implemented is going to make Wikipedia look rather silly. Arniep 09:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As my comment said, given that his father apparently repudiated Judaism and Mendelssohn not only was not a practicing Jew but did not even use his Jewish family name, to claim him as Jewish seems a lot like revisionism. A bit like the Mormons with their baptism-by-proxy. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Home and Away

Hi, you have voted in the afd for various Home&Away character articles. I have had a go at combining all the articles in a single article (which I admit still needs a lot of work). You can find it at Current Home and Away characters. I suggest we keep this article are either delete or re-direct the others. What do you think? Thanks, Evil Eye 13:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Vastly better! If we must have character bios, that's definitely the way to go. Only those fictional characters with a huge canon of work and long-term study in other literature should, IMO, have separate articles - Sherlock Holmes was the first to come to mind. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Triumph Image: The question of removal of this picture from the article?

talk:motorized bicycle#RFC: Triumph Image: The question of removal of this picture from the article?... just to let you know that this is still an edit war. I think we're just at a cease fire. --CyclePat 04:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

With you, for some reason, it's always an edit war. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, but we are at a cease fire, right? --CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedelec

Ok. I just like the challenge of tinkering with bad translations and got a little carried into it. A merge is probably a good idea. --DanielCD 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your email

Hello, I emailed you. Check ASAP as it will explain why I did something. I also have a request.--FloNight 17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Sorry! Derny

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User talk:Jaulern

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)

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)

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)

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

Block

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)

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)

Re: WP:SPAM

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

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)

Primal diet

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Tommy

> 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)

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

---

Wikihalo Deputy Director Offer

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)

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

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)

This role no longer exists. The Neokid talk 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD finishing

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Dante Ceccon

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)

-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)

Micronations

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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: [7]; [8] (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)

Hutt River Province Principality

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)

(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)

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)

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

Could you settle something small?

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)

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

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)

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)

This [9] seems to settle it? And who knew cats were so controversial? ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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).

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)

The history [10] shows that Durova did not edit the article on 23 Jan at all. At 22:29 on Jan 22 this edit [11] 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)

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)

Aspergers & fandom

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [12]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Davidkevin 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Done.

Davidkevin 16:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<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)

heady

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)

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

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

Confusion

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

This: [13] and this: [14]. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Here's a thing...

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

83.151.251.195

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)

Thanks mate. The spammer is also active on Usenet, at a low level: [15]. 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)

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

Police state

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)

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

What would Jimbo do?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Hmm

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

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

My Additions

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))

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)

Neuro-linguistic programming

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)

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

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)

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)

RE: Copyright infringment of Greenville Tech page?

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)

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)

Gastroturfing?

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)

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)

London Welsh F.C.

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)

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

Advice sought on a talk page whitewasher

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Aha. Now moot per Basil_Rathbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see block log) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)