User talk:JzG/Archive 96

Speedy deletion nomination of Lookout Mountain Air Force Station/Draft

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Bgwhite (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• That is quite funny. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Lookout Mountain Air Force Station/Draft

Stop reverting. Rules specifically state, "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Also, there is no place for name calling. Calm down and let the system work it self out. Bgwhite (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• As I made absolutely clear, I did not "create" this, I brought it here from OTRS as a service to someone who wants to help improve the encyclopaedia. Any specific interpretation of "the rules" would be impeding improvement of the encyclopaedia in this case. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you see

WP:HD#Kyle Chapman page which explains some other edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. He emailed, too, in identical terms. Anyone who wants to assert that their article is under attack by "lefty" people adding sourced facts, is on to a loser, but I did state it more neutrally. I am informed that he has other convictions and a history ofviolent offences, too, but I haven't gone looking for dirt. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not worth bothering about at the moment anyway. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group

Hello Guy, I'm trying to correct a past error. On 25 September 2012 you deleted the article The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group on copyright grounds, and notified its author. An earlier version of this article was a copyright violation and was rightly deleted, but the author had completely rewritten the text so, I'm told, the second version was not a copyright violation. The second version was harvested by a Wikipedia mirror site: this is why the article matched text on the web and may incorrectly have been taken to be a copyvio. Your summary for the deletion was "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.history.qmul.ac.uk/research/modbiomed/index.html)". Was the article at that time a copy of the linked page? That conflicts with what I've been told.

This was the work of the new editor who is an academic historian and a potential enthusiastic contributor, but who was not aware of all relevant Wikipedia policies and made some mistakes. I'm in touch with him and am educating him about the right way to do things (including getting a personal rather than organisational account), but the way he was treated is a classic case of newbie biting, and the second charge of copyright violation is a mistake, though an understandable one. The user has a COI with respect to the article, but had worked with an independent editor to revise it. At this point I'm just interested in getting the article restored. Can you help? I'm happy to review the article for neutrality if that's needed. Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a version provably not written by someone with a close connection to the subject? Guy (Help!) 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Let's deal with copyright and COI separately, since they're separate topics. The version had already been written with input from an uninvolved user as part of AFC and I've additionally offered to review. Not having seen the draft, I don't know how neutral it is but if what I've been told is true, it's not a copyright violation. If it's a matter of avoiding direct COI edits of article space, then we should proceed by restoring the draft to user space from where it can be reviewed and moved by editors without a close connection to the subject. Do you agree? MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at it - it's a horrible mess of a thing, and the title is wrong too. Plus it was all about what the group will do, not what it has done, and it was supported only by sources at QMUL. So it was deletable on many grounds. If you want a copy to turn into an article then I can give it to you, but I think you'll find that apart from the odd preposition, not much survives :-) Guy (Help!) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the title issue: as I said, this was a new user. I will take up your kind offer and if I shred the draft, so be it. Cheers, MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Pure Essence

Hi - I'm writing you in regards to an article on the band Pure Essence, which was redirected last year as a result of this AfD discussion. After further examination, I recently discovered multiple sources that I had missed during the course of the AfD. Consequently, I decided to re-write the article while incorporating this coverage, which I have posted here. As you can see, the article is substantially different from the version that was originally nominated for AfD. While some of the new references contain only trivial coverage, others are non-trivial (most notably, length-wise, a review in The Wire magazine). Taking this into consideration, I now feel there is sufficient reliably-sourced material to justify a standalone article. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Cheers,  Gong show 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, one of the tiny number of people determined to have an article on this insignificant band, is still determined ot have an article on this insignificant band. I'm not a huge fan of bandcruft myself, as you might guess. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, that person's appeal prompted me to have a second look. It turned out that the collected material has allowed for a neutrally-written, detailed, and well-referenced article, despite the topic being rather obscure. That's a net positive in my view, though I appreciate that opinions vary. Take care,  Gong show 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Amazon

Why do you believe that Amazon is not a reliable source for planned publication dates? As in Lindsey Davis. PamD 19:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's more that linking to Amazon favours a particular retailer. We should cite the publisher, not a seller. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I linked to the sources where I found the information. By all means find replacement sources, but I don't think that making the publication dates unsourced improves the encyclopaedia. Do you, really? PamD 23:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Marsden

Ping! -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"Please just drop it"

Hi. Your entreaty has only raised more questions than it sought to suppress, in particular these. Any chance of a response? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why the stonewall? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry yourself (any more than you already have = 0) about this. I've found the answer I was after, @ User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Help. It's best encapsulated by JamesBWatson to Joseph:

• You were not making any "speculation", but simply asking for a fact. There was nothing whatever wrong with doing so, and Medeis's criticism was totally unfounded. That has now been explained repeatedly, and if Medeis still doesn't understand, then I don't see anything more that can be done about that.; and
• In your original post, you were clearly asking for information about what Pistorius said: "So, according to his story, did he say ... What reason did he give? Or did he just say ..." All of that is asking for factual information, not "speculation", and to call it a "BLP violation" is absurd.

I'll be sure to add you to my List of Extremely Unhelpful Administrators.

Bye now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How about the list of "extremely busy administrators"? For faster response, always email. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So busy that you have no time to answer not 1, not 2, but 3 requests for information? But not so busy that you can respond when I tell you I've finally found what I needed elsewhere? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Being unavailable at the usual channels of wiki-communication for a number of days, with no notices about such unavailability, makes a mockery of being an administrator, really. We can do better than this, I think. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki is a brilliant platform for collaborative document editing, and a shit platform for real-time communication. Feel free to email me any time, I endeavour to reply within 24 hours. I can check email on my phone, I typically do not check Wikipedia messages when on a customer site. Please try to meet me halfway. My workload is unpredictable and varies between doing it in my sleep and working round the clock. Unhelpful is not a term often applied to me (other than by quacks, but I don't care about them). Busy, on the other hand, is. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I think you at least owe it to potential supplicants to let them know the above, by way of a general notice at the head of your talk page. You applied to be an administrator, nobody forced you. When you tell editors to "drop it" or anything else, it's not unreasonable for them to want to have something to say about it, or some questions to ask about it, and when you appear to be totally ignoring them for the best part of a week, that is not a good perception and it just creates ill feeling (as per above, which I've now struck). Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You sent me a message but I don't know the proper way to respond

Obviously, a living person (Jeanine di Giovani) is spending a great deal of energy editing her own biography, and I don't believe that the version she tries to impose on other is on par with the Wikipedia standards, specially re. neutrality.

I also believe strongly that if this person wants to be the subject of such a long biography, the darkest side of her achievements should be exposed as well as the more honorable ones.

There was a consensus 2 months ago among various Wikipedia contributors that her bio was too long and, that the "controversy" part of her bio should be kept. Now a few days ago, someone (most probably her) reverted the bio to a longer, totally unbalanced, version of her bio. Hence my astonishment that such behaviour can be tolerated.

Regards.

Posting here was the right way to respond, thank you.

The person adding content to the article, is not the subject, as far as I can tell. The content they add is largely correct and adds important missing facts, but as you have rightly identified, it is worded in a way that is not compliant with policy.

However: reverting that text is also a problem, because it gives the appearance of being determined to exclude facts which reflect better on the subject than those you have added.

At this point I would advise you to register an account, and engage in civil discussion with user:TheTzatz and work out how to include the missing facts in a way that is compliant with policy.

We're not interested in making a judgment about the subject based on any one past event, though. Don't make the mistake of believing that the otne of the article should be dominated by the French comments. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John Frederick Nelson

Please see bottom message on my talk page. I hate uploading photos I haven't taken. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Junior Writers Awards‎

Hi JzG, I noticed that you deleted Junior Writers Awards per G5, blocked/banned user. I have two thoughts: The blocked user was blocked because they were describing themselves as a corporation, in vio of the username policy. An individual came back and re-created the article. They may have a COI, but this doesn't preclude them from editing, so it's not like sockpuppetry or anything--they were forced to abandon that username. Secondly, I think the more recent version of the article was far less offensive and spam-laden as previous incarnations, and assuming that notability could be properly established, the article may have made the cut. This is not a criticism of your call, I'm only floating a different perspective, having seen the evolution of the article. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Damn this nuance, it makes life so complicated. I think you have the mop? If so, I am completely calm about undeletion if you think you can fix the root cause. I was just clearing CAT:CSD, as you do. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the mop (and thank you for your positive thoughts on my talk page!) I was just presenting a different perspective as someone who had seen the worst of the article along with its improvements. :D I might propose the article either be undeleted so the relevant WikiProjects (Hong Kong and Education) can weigh in on an AfD if you think it's necessary, or refunded to the contributor so they can work on it in peace. ? A pleasure, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gordonreg have made an unblock request and restore the Junior Writers Awards Wiki Page. I just want to create a Junior Writers Awards Event information in Wiki. The event was initiated by Norton House Global Education Initiative (Non-governmental organization - NGO). It is a Charity Event between Hong Kong and Macau.

Thanks for restore the Junior Writers Awards wiki page to User:Gordonreg. Since the Awards already gone, people will search the wiki JWA for more information, is there anyway to move page to article space? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.203.63 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the Awards already gone, people will search the wiki to get more JWA information, is there anyway to move page to article space? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.203.63 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are still evading a block. Two, in fact. DO NOT do that. Go back, request unblocking. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage and help page

Hey JzG, I noticed that a user, which you indefinitely blocked, had created your userpage. Just a note, if you would like to delete it.

I also noticed that your help page has the section "Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute", which probably belongs on your talk page. I was confused as to why the message was there, so you would probably want to take a look at that as well. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I have fixed both. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Lyndsey Turner deletion log

Please add a log entry to the deletion log indicating that criteria WP:G4 should not be used since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner and other discussions closed as non-AFD (specifically OTRS and G5) deletions should the creation-block be replaced with one that expires. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Lyndsey Turner

Ms Turner is a notable theatrical director. She won the best director award at the 2014 Critics' Circle Theatre Awards, which is one of the top awards in the industry alongside the Olivier and the Evening Standard Awards. Link for her award is here: [1]. She is the only award-winning director in the last 30 years who's been denied her own page. I strongly believe that she is notable and deserving of reinstatement. Please reconsider. Thanks. -- Peripatetic (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Email me, please. And block the editor who asked you to come here, it's a sock of user:Fairyspit. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So you went to DRV instead of emailing. Thanks for that, it will make my life so much simpler. Apart from the bits where I have to go back to real people whoa re harmed by the actions of the abusive user. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just happened onto an oddly placed and badly formed "request", Wikipedia talk:Community portal#Lyndsey Turner (stage director) to have the Lyndsey Turner article reinstated or to have it "unprotected". I think they believe the article is salted but it doesn't appear to be by the deletion log. I see rather bold attempts by a banned and blocked user and a number of sock attempts and an OTRS Ticket:2014012210016753 from last year.

I am an uninvolved editor, and was wondering if I could create my own article for this subject.

I did a quick check and feel there is sufficient reliable sources to create a decent stub or start class article. I noticed that in comments, a claim is made that the figure is only an associate director. Yes, Associate Director of the Sheffield Crucible and The Gate Theatre, London. However that isn't "only" as Associate director do direct. I see credits for her as a director on Broadwayworld.com (these are not the entirety of her credits however) as well as credit at the Royal Court Theatre. The subject will be directing a production of Hamlet with Benedict Cumberbatch. She seems very young, but does have a good deal of credits under her belt and notability does seem to be met. What are the chances I can create this?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please email me. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure...although a few clicks and I think I get the picture.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you probably do. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if I somehow broke protocol by going to DRV... as you'll see, I have very very few edits in non-article pages (i.e. talk pages, community pages), so not even sure what the proper etiquette is in these situations. I didn't even know where else to go with this request, and ended up in the Community Portal talk page until I was told to go to DRV.

As for the request itself, no one actually contacted me about it. I created the original article several years ago as one of many London theatre stubs. In all, I've created more than 800 articles in the last 9 years, and the vast majority of them are still here. Very occasionally, some article or other gets deleted by an admin who goes by first impressions (insufficient refs, etc) and won't judge the subject on merit. Usually I let it slide, as I'm more focused on article creation, less so on discussing them on talk pages, admin pages etc (e.g. Anna Kim). Anyway, I do feel that Ms Turner is getting the wrong treatment here for some reason which I can't quite fathom. But as I said, no one asked me, your block flashed up in my notifications and I felt this was unfair, since I've seen many of her shows over the years, and happen to know just how well-regarded her work is in the theatre world. Chimerica is only the latest example.

I'm not sure how to email you either, so am detailing all this here. Again, if I was wrong in going to DRV, I apologize. My only interest here is getting the article back up, which I strongly feel the subject deserves. Thanks. Peripatetic (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. You just need to know that this is a complex matter, and that there is an extensive history of abuse centred on that article. I am not comfortable with having an article until such time as we can be confident the abuser is under control - and right now he is not, having recently (in the last couple of days) re-created the article yet again under yet another title wiht yet another sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI: User:LyndseyTurnerDirector, User:LyndseyTurnerTheatreDirector, and User:TheatreDirectorBiography have suddenly appeared as a userpage copy of the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Imagine that. I should thank him, really - I like playing whack-a-mole. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I appended to the SPI earlier, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fairyspit. Cheers, Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Did wikipedia just grow up??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

An unusually measured and thoughtful discussion. I agree with pretty much every point made, even by those who advocate having an article anyway. Summary: it's complicated. If this was a shoo-in (like Don Murphy) then we'd have an article, end of, but this is not half such a prominent person. So yes, it's a very mature discussion and I would not have any problem pointing Ms. Turner to it either, which is not the case for some debates. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi Guy, I was wondering, in your opinion, what is required for a user to be promoted to admin? What kind of qualities do you think they should have, what kind of experience is important, etc. Thank you :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Lady Lotus, sorry for butting in, but if you wanted a good real-life example of what other admins are looking for, take a gander at this horrorshow! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I plainly have no bloody idea! For me, what is needed is self-evident dedication to the project and its core ethos, plus a credible reason for wanting admin tools (e.g. vandal patrol, sockpuppet investigation, deletion reviews). For some people it's a huge big deal and you have to compose ten FAs all on your own plus never say a harsh word to anyone and always !voe "keep" in deletion debates. If you want an example of the perfect admin, check out someone like user:DGG. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, Cyphoid, are all requests like that? Seems like more are in favor of you getting it :) Guy, do you have to be involved in deletion debates in order to be promoted? LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

since I've been mentioned, despite my blushes, I refer you to the neutral I just !voted at that RfA. I've tried there to explain why attention to deletion is one of the essentials., and also how to learn the way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, DGG has deleted far more material off the project then I have. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me, and I meant nothing about anyone else by pointing to DGG. The salient feature here is fairness. Nobody would accuse DGG of being an evil deletionist, which I definitely am. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, no dig at DGG was intended. I appreciate the input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Adminship dealie

-->> Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyphoidbomb Added by JzG, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE for Cyphoidbomb! <<--

Hey JzG, am I allowed to invite other admins to comment on my Adminship application, or is that considered forum shopping? I figured that while I haven't exactly "chummed it up" with other admins, they might be aware of what I do and might help present a fuller picture to admins who don't know me. My proposed note might read something like: Admin JzG nominated me for adminship, and though it was sudden, I have accepted the nomination to pick up the mop. Since my Wikipedia-ing has intersected with yours, I thought I'd invite you to comment, in case you had any opinions of my contributions. There's no pressure to respond, and I'm not looking only for validation, so if you have any criticism or don't think I'm ready yet, I encourage you to hit me with it, so I can improve in case the nomination comes around again. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry, mate, not having actively sought friends is a point in your favour for a lot of people :-) Beware WP:CANVASS too. Also, don't get stressed. There are people at RFA who seem to want every admin to be some kind of super-Wikipedian who creates ten FAs a day and never makes a mistake. The Support votes, even if the RFA fails, are from seriously good people. And if it does fail, take the Opposes and bank them. A few comments are kind of relevant, in that you need to oppose as well as support deletion to make inclusionists comfortable. Many people take two RFAs to pass. It's a marathon not a sprint. And support from Secret? That, to me, is almost as good as support form Jimbo. And I speak as one who has had a meeting with Jimbo over beer. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, after I dropped this query on your page, I realized that I'd rather sink on my own merits than swim because I poked familiar editors to speak on my behalf. I didn't think that through. :) However, I did think to ask you first, so there's that. Ha! I gotta say, if there's one good thing to come from this, it's that I'm now aware of my shitty AFD and CSD noms. Those are things I can definitely tweak, but it's still kind of embarrassing to get all that criticism at once, since I wasn't aware that I was screwing those up. Totally my fault, though, because I forgot to add many of those AfDs to my watchlist and never saw the criticism in real time. I never would have deliberately ignored those objections. Anyhow, even if I don't make it this time, I'll know how to improve. Tanks, mang! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC) PS: Thanks for the banner! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Life is a learning experience. A WP:NOTYET is hardly the end of the world, especially if it gives you stuff you can work on. Take it all in good part (and ignore any trolls), let it fall how it falls and be aware that I think you are certainly good admin material, and if you carry on as you are you will earn the dubious privilege of a Wikimop in time :-) Guy (Help!)

Thanks m'man! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

InternetQ

Hello,

I believe it was you, who warned User:Zebrasil on his talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#InternetQ.

Thank you, Timothy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear JzG, don't you find a bit weird that user Tim.Thelion has suddenly woke-up from his deep sleep since July 2013? Aren't you a bit surprised by his eagerness to strike internetq in particular by even adding a "watch" for revisions ruining his own? No need to mention on the language he uses. If I was wikipedia I would have feel at least offended by the street language used. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latitude123 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Latitude123,

If you read my explanation on the COI noticeboard you will find a reasonable explanation for my sudden interest in the company ;).

The man who hates PR bs even more than spam,

Tim.thelion (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I am convinced by your truly gentle feelings protecting.. who ever that is you protect. Your profile got reactivated for this cause and what you do is more than obvious.

Wikipedia is all about contriibution on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latitude123 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fire the other barrel, you still have one foot left. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Now they're threatening legal action. Tim.thelion (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure. Ask at WP:ANI, I id not really see it that way, more as a language thing. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_Notice_from_InternetQ Tim.thelion (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

§FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Back at ya :-) Guy (Help!) 08:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RJ Parker page deletion

Greetings,

To my dismay, the RJ Parker page was deleted today. I was surprised because I worked through the weekend on it going back and forth with several reviewers and making a great number of changes to fit it into the guidelines. If there was something specific that didn't fit or needed to be adjusted I would be more than happy to do that and that is even Wikipedia's preference, so I was surprised by the deletion.

I would very much like to resolve this in a way that gets the page back up and fits the necessary criteria. Please let me know how we can make this work, at your earliest convenience, thank you.

Jasonwilczak (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Promotional in tone (WP:CSD#G11), created by an editor with no other contributions, plus credible information suggesting that the subject procured the article. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough response. The tone I can obviously alter without any issue into a format that is more inline with Wikipedia's principles. Yes, I have had no other contributions as a user, but that shouldn't be grounds for deletion. That's akin to the idea that in order to get a job you need experience. I'm just a user with something they would like to contribute and spent a bit of time trying to put together in a way that I thought was beneficial to the community. As far as procurement goes, I'm not sure what may have happened with other people, but this was just the effort of a fan.

I do hope you will reconsider and let me at least rephrase it into a more neutral perspective. Thank you for your time and effort.

Jasonwilczak (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The sad truth is that an article containing peacock terms created with proper wiki formatting and layout by a brand new user without previous history, is very often an indication of promotional activity. In this case, we also had a complaint that the author had paid for the article. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough point and, to that point, I certainly used phrases and wording as they were found. Based off of some Teahouse discussions, not all of the awards/accolades were with merit. Again, though, I defer to the idea that I can alter the article to remove the 'puffery' and make it more neutral in tone, if that is the true nature of the issue. No problem there. Also, if there was payment, I'm sure I would have known :) On that note, maybe it was some other incident, not related to this particular one drafted by me.

Are you willing to give me another shot at this?

Jasonwilczak (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good day, just following up on this to see if I can have another go at it. I know you are busy, so no rush, just checking in :)

Jasonwilczak (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DFXSPORTSANDFITNESS]

We can add legal threats from DFXSPORTSANDFITNESS‎ with this. Is there any point in raising this when he's already indef'ed? Meters (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not really, he's just digging an ever deeper hole, typical rebuffed spammer. Thanks for the note though, I will revoke his talkpage access. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) (non-admin comment) A record available to administrators (and, ideally, everyone) in an obvious place like the block log should be made of the legal threat - it will become relevant if he resorts to sockpuppetry or attempts to edit while not logged in under the same IP address. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's on his talk page, I vote "meh". If he tries it on, then we wield the big stick, until then let sleeping spammers lie. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if we wake a spammer up, he will tell the truth? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Homeopathy page, and summary of discussion on the subject- Discussion closure

Hello. You appear to have closed the discussion on the neutrality of the homeopathy page. While I agree that the page does conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, I find that closing the discussion was pointless and rather counterproductive. In that discussion, I had the impression that we were actually heading somewhere useful, and contrary to the message you left on George1935's talk page, I would say that the discussion was not "futile, sterile and tendentious." Have some patience and assume good faith, please. Closing the discussion like that will only foster ill will, discontent, and disgruntlement upon editors. Thank you. NHCLS (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. The POV tag is absolutely not justified. George is going to be topic-banned. The discussion is sterile. That doesn't mean the article can't be improved, only that the assertion that it should be checked for POV is disruptive (which it clearly is). Guy (Help!) 01:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe that "the assertion that it should be checked for POV is disruptive?" NHCLS (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Because, as you agree, it's neutral. So tagging it for a neutrality check is pointless, tendentious and disruptive. Neutral doesn't mean perfect, but actually it's also pretty good. Guy (Help!) 01:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is rather pointless, but how is it disruptive? NHCLS (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is disruptive because it is pointless. It demands that everybody respond to one editors quixotic demands for something that is clearly not supported by policy. It has no chance of improving the article, because it's a meta-discussion only. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I hope I made it pretty clear that I did not think a tag was necessary and that I believe that homeopathy is useless. However, I thought the closing of the discussion was a little abrupt and I could see that there was some ill will regarding the previous discussions about the homeopathy page, and I thought that the discussion I started was going to leave the minority group feeling as if a fairer discussion had happened. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not the problem here. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting your help

Guy, I noticed that you have given helpful and constructive feedback for the Medical Family Therapy page. When you have a chance, can you please review the edits to see if I am meeting Wikipedia's guidelines/addressing concerns of this being a novel concept on the articles for deletion page? If not, I would appreciate your feedback so I can make the edits. After addressing this concern of MedFT being a "novel concept" (WP:OR), I will continue to edit the article to fit the "encyclopedia tone" needed for Wikipedia. Thanks again for your feedback and suggestions.--Lsudano (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Gojan School of Business and Technology

I dont think this is significantly more promotional than most university pages--it's just description, not a long account of why the school is excellent. Please restore it, & I'l ldo some editing. (I know I have the ability to do so myself, but I want to ask you first.) DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Help yourself. It was written by a single-purpose account, you can join the dots. I am sure a decent article could be written on the subject. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, just thought I'd drop you a note to thank you for nominating me for adminship. Since I failed, though, you are now my life-long sworn mortal enemy! Kidding of course. I appreciate that you saw potential in me, and I hope that you continue to see that potential in others. The process was really sucky, I gotta be honest. It was discouraging to see people jump on the oppose bandwagon, sometimes opposing for reasons that made no sense or that required them to misinterpret my answer, or whatever, and then trying to clear up their misperception only to then be accused of "[mild] badgering". Crappy. Anyhow, much appreciated! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Mate, you'll be fine. More of this sort of thing! Guy (Help!) 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)