JzG

• Time Cube (AfD discussion)

Editors are thinking about having a Gene Ray article because it would be "more fun". You're up. ☺ Uncle G (talk)

EDIT: Sorry - had to edit Carolines page, I felt compelled to. Will update with her QQ article on gamers when I find the link again. Cheerio

- Scott

Hi - I just opened an editor review, and I request you for some advice on how I can prepare myself for adminship. I will greatly appreciate your feedback :)

→ WP:ANI#Hector Sants

Hi, have you got some detail about that article? As I could see, the article appeared to be wanted to be kept by someone who appeared to be the likely subject and someone who appeared to be a student wanting to get rid of it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• -The cashe is here - where has the subject stated that it is factually incorrect from beginning to end? Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The person asking for deletion is, as far as I can make out, the subject. We had an OTRS email from someone who is believable as the subject (name plus .edu domain) requesting deletion. I don't need the cached version, I can see the deleted versions. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well imo it was the student that didn't like the subject having an article that sent you the email but I can't see it. I can't see it also because you deleted it but the talkpage discussion was looking clearly reflective of that situation also, the standards for professors notability is set quite low as I remember, and I was thinking he was just about notable and I removed most of the disputable detail from the article and it would have been better imo sending it AFD if you had a unverifiable email, reminds me of the last time I spoke to you - arbitrarily rewriting or deleting articles because you had an weakly claimed unverified email from someone claiming to be the subject.wouldd you please add to the deletion log the OTRS number as you have on previous such deletions after OTRS requests, thanks - If you can't add it, just post it here so I can reference it if needed for future discussions. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What does it mean "stated by the subject to be factually incorrect from beginning to end." in English? Shaska has contacted you and stated that the page is factually incorrect? The guy is quite controversial in Albania and has had issues in every country he has worked. I am not a student, I am a colleague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therepel (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• - I see you have edited, is there some reason for you not to provide the OTRS number relating to this case as I requested ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes there is. I can't be arsed, and you don't have OTRS access anyway. There's only one ticket under that name, the search feature works just fine. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually in reply to your positions of added responsibility at this wikipedia you have a duty to reply to such good faith queries in regards to your contributions such as we all do, go search for it yourself is not a fair reply to a good faith request, if you can't be arsed to reply in a decent manner you should consider if you should be arsed to edit at all. I dispute your judgment as it is and your comments here do nothing to alleviate my doubts, you appear to consider yourself above answering in a respectful manner, no I don't have OTRS access but I am still a human being worthy of a respectful answer, so, consider your ongoing position as regards future arbitrarily deleting content without clear confirmation of who has sent you the email - as you refuse to discuss and explain there is nothing to discuss with you, but this is the second time this issue has arisen with you and I hope not to come a third. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I had this page on my watchlist from a little while ago. I believe that last time it was posted, it was a copyright violation of a NYT article. It reapeared today and I find it fishy. At best, it's just a copy/paste from Stillman House (Litchfield) and there's nothing wrong with it. Worst case, it's full of copyright violations. Do you see anything wrong with it that might need immediate attention? OlYeller^Talktome 03:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, I found a mirror website with a copy of the Stillman House (Litchfield) article and a copy of the article in the form of a National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. I'm not sure who the form 'belongs' to so I'm not sure if it's a copyvio. If it belongs to the applicant, I guess it would be considered their work and a copyright violation (I think?) but if it belongs to the US government, it's public domain, correct? At any rate, I'm not copyright attorney so I wanted to see if you had any insight on the matter. OlYeller^Talktome 03:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If it's a copy paste it needs deleting. This is a single-purpose account so they probably either don't understand it or (worse) are a sockpuppet of the previous creator. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, How do I go about reinstating that Fabulous page. I got the photos off band member. All the referencing etc went through stringent checks if you look at page history. Can we work together to edit it?

Thanks, Shirley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsaiman (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You need reliable independent sources and a draft version that does not read like PR. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a user you recently blocked [1] is back by using a couple IPs. That was his favorite edit: [2]

93.186.31.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): same edit earlier and also [3],[4]

93.186.31.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): same edit earlier and it is now active. Should they be blocked? Thanks. Biophys (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

93.186.23.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This is also him, as well as 93.186.23.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.186.31.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Biophys (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I also reported them to WP:AVI. 93.186.31.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is currently blocked for two weeks, but I think he should be re-blocked indefinitely.Biophys (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• OK, thanks, I have semiprotected Orlando Figes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 10:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Here is the problem: they vandalizes many other articles, and this is apparently the same person. But such matters should be probably addressed at SPI?Biophys (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I didn't know about all the above. I e-mailed the photographer/band member and he said someone have been vandalising the page, with reference to him. I am happy to make an edit to the Fabulous entry that aims to be more objective and is much shorter. How can I do this as I can no longer see the original article? It would be much easier for me to work off of that template. Could you also clarify 'independent sources'. I presume you mean official webites, such as Heavenly Records and BBC2 Rapido TV? Those are official. Do you mean i cannot include newspapers such as The Guardian, because the link is not to the official newspaper page and is a link to a fansite/blog that just has a scan of the article in The Guardian?

Thanks Sinsaiman (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I e-mailed the photographer/band member and he said someone have been vandalising the page, with reference to him. I didn't know about this. he said he had requested a block on the person doing the vandalising.

I am happy to make an edit to the Fabulous entry that aims to be more objective and is much shorter. How can I do this as I can no longer see the original article? It would be much easier for me to work off of that template. Could you also clarify 'independent sources'. I presume you mean official webites, such as Heavenly Records and BBC2 Rapido TV? Those are official. Do you mean i cannot include newspapers such as The Guardian, because the link is not to the official newspaper page and is a link to a fansite/blog that just has a scan of the article in The Guardian? Thanks Shirley Sinsaiman (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I e-mailed the photographer/band member and he said someone have been vandalising the page, with reference to him. I didn't know about this. he said he had requested a block on the person doing the vandalising. I am happy to make an edit to the Fabulous entry that aims to be more objective and is much shorter. How can I do this as I can no longer see the original article? It would be much easier for me to work off of that template. Could you also clarify 'independent sources'. I presume you mean official webites, such as Heavenly Records and BBC2 Rapido TV? Those are official. Do you mean i cannot include newspapers such as The Guardian, because the link is not to the official newspaper page and is a link to a fansite/blog that just has a scan of the article in The Guardian? Thanks Shirley Sinsaiman (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• How about not doing that? How about giving up your obsession with this profoundly unimportant subject? My tolerance for people with only one interest on Wikipedia is strictly limited. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well well, I see you have forum-shopped your way to getting your spammy article restored. And now I think you are vermin. Please never post here again. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi JzG,

Sorry to bother you. You might remember our conversation in June, regarding Article references for the Third Report?

The Third Report broke a big story over the summer, which dozens of national media outlets picked up, and credited the Third Report for either the story, the video (the video itself has a hover spot in the center top crediting the Third Report), or both.

Would these credits to the Third Report from national media outlets (the Huffington Post and Politico, to name just two) constitute non-trivial references?

It's okay if they don't. They are about the Third Report's story and video, and not the site itself. It only just now occurred to me that they might of helped, though, and so I thought I would ask.

Just let me know,

Thanks,

Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBorelli (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• For me, sources need to be about the subject, not just namechecks, however high profile. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks Guy. I thought so, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. I'll keep waiting for someone to take notice.

Tony TonyBorelli (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for bothering you but why did you delete John B. Kimble? He is a Maryland politician running for US Senate in 2012 and notability has been established. You seemingly went by a deletion review of an old article from 2007. Four years seems like a long time to come back and be arbitrary in removing an article. 69.140.66.1 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• He's been running for office for some time and not got anywhere yet, and the article was written mainly by him and his staff. It's also a re-creation of an article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kimble, by a single-purpose account, not long afdter the deletion, at a subtly different title. Read: vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I read the deletion review and subsequent communications. The article was not a recreation and was submitted and reviewed by Tom and other administrators. It was not started by him from what I know but it seems strange to remove an article that is getting viewed after a decision that was nearly four years previous and there was no discussion at the present time. Is JZG the correct entity to place the article back up? 69.140.66.1 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Deleted article, restarted shortly after deletion by WP:SPA, vanity tone, not an elected politician, known to be mainly the work of himself or his campaign team. In other words, abuse of Wikipedia for political gain. Evil. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I disagree with your assessment and I believe that the article should be placed back on Wikipedia. From the dates I have seen it was not started without permission by the elder administrators and the actions by JZG seem to be biased and without merit or justification. I find the man interesting and not done by himself. The Maryland politician I find doing his own article for own financial gain is Daniel Vovak who even edits the page using his own name. John B. Kimble has been on Wikipedia for years and to remove it now without cause or reason is balderdash. While Kimble has a funny name and has not won election yet I do believe that he is notable and has met the requisite standards for inclusion on the free encyclopedia. So the article should be put back up.

69.140.66.1 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply