User talk:JzG/Archive 95

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Did you forward that? I have Patrick's email if you need it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, already forwarded and closed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, mate. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The "courtesy blanked" template on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner (director) is a little confusing on the AfD log, as it's currently transcluding a random courtesy blanked template in the middle of other AfDs. Instead of using {{courtesy blanked}}, do you think you could consider using {{Xfd-privacy}} template instead? Thanks. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. The template should not transclude, I think I used subst. I'm more concerned about the subject and handling the overspill of a real-world issue to Wikipedia, any help is always appreciated. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind an experienced admin like yourself that rollback is only appropriate for undoing problematic edits such as vandalism. Would you be kind enough to review your edit summary for this edit and confirm that you didn't use rollback (or any other tool that you possess as a consequence of being an admin) to revert what are unquestionably good-faith edits, please? Can I also remind you that courtesy to other users dictates that you indicate accurately the version of the article that you reverted to? Your talk page comment "I am rolling back to the point before your mass edit spree" falls short of that, as a glance at the history of Chiropractic will show you. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I didn't. You can't roll back across multiple editors (QG plus bots). QuackGuru made dozens of problematic edits in defiance of consensus, it's absolutely standard WP:BRD. I'd be interested to hear who brought this up, since you have to be entirely ignorant of the way MediaWiki software works to make such a claim. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't just answer a reasonable question without personalising the discussion. Nevertheless, as you've started down that line: I brought it up and I'm pretty certain I know more about wikimedia software than you do. But this isn't a pissing contest. This is me querying what your actions actually were. It clearly wasn't rollback (as that allows no custom message) - so why did you use the term both in your edit summary and on the talk page? You would certainly confuse editors by misapplying the term. As we both know it wasn't rollback, you could have reverted to any point in the edit history, so let me ask you for a second time - what point in the edit history of Chiropractic did you revert to?

As you've raised the issue, there is no consensus to exclude WHO guidelines as a source (and it is used several times anyway), so you don't have "absolutely standard WP:BRD". I do agree that QG made far too many changes to review easily, but your wholescale revert also rejects any good edits he may have made - a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is also clearly counterproductive as you can see from QG's hurt responses. If you're really concerned about the article, you should be working with him to determine which, if any, of his changes were improvements and seeking a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Talk:Chiropractic. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." Right venue. Still, if you want to evade answering reasonable questions about your edits, so be it. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever considered not lecturing people about doing things the way you think they should be done? I do not choose to discuss this article here any longer. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Shall I assume you don't want to discuss your behaviour here either? If so feel free to have the last word. --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You can assume that I am 50 years old with a highly paid job, two adult sons, a reputation in my industry that has taken me to several continents, and that I devote most of my Wikipedia time to handling WP:OTRS tickets and related issues. In other words, you can assume that I think you are being obnoxious. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So you do want a pissing contest. Well I'm 61 years old with two adult children, comfortably retired from several very well-paid jobs, and have a world-wide reputation for educating arrogant assoles who think their shit smells of fresh linen. I intend to devote no more of my wiki-time to dealing with you. It's obvious that you neither recognise when you're being obstructive nor intend to reform from that. I'll leave it at that. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Then behave like one adult talking to another, not like one of the fucking teenagers around here. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to give up, but I sense the possibility that you might be willing to bury the hatchet. Ok Guy. I'd be pleased to talk to you as one grouchy old man to another :D. Thank you for the invitation. Would you like to draw a line under our exchanges and start again in a spirit of cooperation? If you tell me I have offended you, I'm willing to apologise sincerely. As a gesture of reconciliation, if you tell me the oldid of the article version that you'd like restored, I'll revert myself back to that version. How's that sound? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Per mail, we're all good now I hope. Sorry to be grouchy, the fault is all mine. I guess you get my perspective now, anyway we can thrash this out on the talk page. Pleasure doing business with you, sir. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, why are you delinking seemingly randomly using Twinkle? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Redlinks on drivers who are unlikely, per present evidence, to qualify for an article, is likely to cause confusion. I found them due to an email to WP:OTRS that highlighted removal of names altogether; better to have plain text than a battle. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'm fairly sure that both drivers qualify for an article, but I'm confused by this OTRS comment; I don't remember seeing any blanking of names, and I don't understand; was someone threatening to do that or something? (I know OTRS is mostly private, but I'm incredibly confused here). Not trying to shoot the messenger though :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone was over-zealously cleaning out redlinks, leaving only blue, and one of the named individuals got upset. Plain text doesn't stand out in the same way and doesn't seem to be subject to removal. Nothing more complicated than that really :-) Guy (Help!) 23:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, someone other than me getting annoyed at cleaning out the redlinks I added myself (that's partially why I've queried it with you) - I've never understood some people's issues with them, but let's not get into that debate. Your explanation makes sense, so I'm happy. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi JzG, I was reviewing the New pages feed and discovered some Bee Gees articles contributed by User:Sam navera who apparently is a sock of PogiJmon. Should we be doing some clean-up now that he's blocked? I've nominated one of his articles for speedy-deletion, but was wondering if there's a quicker way to clear out his disruptions than going one edit at a time. He seems to have been rather prolific, with edits dating back to August 2012. He did some other weird stuff like moving articles, for example here, and I'm guessing that some of that stuff might need to be undone. No? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Up to you, really: you can speedy any articles created with the sock after the main account was blocked, you can remove any edits made by any of the accounts per WP:RBI, and if you can't undo the moves because of history then let me know and I'll do it (assuming you're not an admin, I haven't looked, sorry). What sort of articles are these? Obvious cruft, or articles we probably should have one day anyway? Guy (Help!) 19:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this is a major cleanup operation, I am nuking the G5 candidates now. Please clean up the xFD submissions for me. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A good deed in a naughty world, I've been sniping away at this editor's determined attempt to create more articles on the Bee Gees than there are on species of beetles

. Let me get this right, any article at all created by this editor can be tagged with a speedy delete?TheLongTone (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Only those created after Jan 3 (when the main account was blocked) . Others should be PRODded or AfD'd with a note that they were created by an obsessive with multiple accounts. Any xFDs closed Keep after input from the multiple accounts can be reopened, any !votes from any of the three accounts can be struck. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've put some old stuff up for afd but there seems to be a great reluctance to delete anything to do with pop music: I speedied an article on somebody who had sung backing vocals to a couple of sessions, work which didn't make the final mix & the tag was removed because of this thinner than a rizla blue connection. (I don't wan't to think about football). It does compare very oddly with the idea that Lyndsey Turner is only marginally notable, having directed shows for some of the most important British theatre companies.TheLongTone (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's different. There is a real-world problem that we were making worse by having an article. When the real-world problme goes away, we can revisit it. And if the notability was any stronger we'd not have removed it even then. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I realise why the article it was deleted. Thought I had those song titles I'd changed to redirects on my watchlist. There are about a hundred similar marginal articles by this editor...TheLongTone (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This may be one of those rare cases where a mass AfD is appropriate. It would be easier if we could establish earlier sockpuppetry though. Lou72JG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks suspicious to me. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no, there are edits that are not BeeGee related. Sam Nevera is a monomaniac.TheLongTone (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's a lot of crossover, and the deleted contribs are also interesting.

That's an awful lot of deleted edits. Up there with vandal patrollers. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

are those the (del/undel) edits? The above might as well be cuneiform for all the sense it really makes. What I was going to say it the previous edit was that from an IP edit that really looked like Sam Navers I think he comes from the Phillipines, & above editor looks American, the edits about american cable channels or whatever.TheLongTone (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like what I'd expect the deleted contribs log to look like. :) The error that caused everything to derp out was an unclosed comment, if anyone was curious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, was that it. Thanks. Yes, it's the deleted contributions log. Make of it what you will. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi mate. Just letting you know: you deleted the article but there was an AfD open - I've closed it now. Cheers! — sparklism ^hey! 13:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There were a *lot* of articles created by that particular sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an admin on it.wiki. This is a reply to the point you raised on the Admin's request page. The author of the relevant article on it.wiki is eagerly wanting to keep it and he's using all he can do to put pressure on the it.wiki community in that direction. Now, on one side in a debate is legitimate and welcome to expose and defend the arguments for keeping an article. But on the other side, there are rules about the discussion. The discussion on it.wiki is strongly focused on the technical arguments for notability (mainly: sources; reliability of the information; notability of the activities done/documented). In no way, there are in the relevant discussion neither personal considerations nor unfair/aggressive tones. On the contrary, the author of the voice is sistematically commenting/pointing out any (free) expression of other users when they're in favour of the removal of the article, with all means, including asking OTRS support, and he was asked to respect the rules for the discussion as the other users are doing. The key point is that, in the discussion about the notability of the information reported in the article, nobody expressed any personal judgements about the subject of the biography: the debate is strictly focusing on technical considerations. There's nothing offensive against the subject, in stating that the article is not reporting a sufficient amount of facts/data which can support the notability or that the structure is more celebrative than informative. Being the discussion on it.wiki widely within the boundary of a civil discussion and fully respectfully of the person (no judgements/criticisms/personal matters), I think there are not the conditions to delete the discussion once ended, since there's nothing harming the dignity of the subject of the voice. One thing which is always pointed out, and on it.wiki there's a specific notice on top of the deletion discussion, is that "the eventual removal of an article related to a living person is not and shall not be considered as a judgement statement about that person". In this specific discussion, as in all the discussions on it.wiki, this is a key point which is always respected and all the users who contributed to the discussion strictly expressed their opinions according to this respectful approach. On the contrary, we have daily experience of users who claim that "not having an article about myself, is harming my reputation"..... May I suggest you to get in touch with another OTRS operator on it.wiki, so he can directly explain you what is the real contents of the discussion and share the point with him/her, so you can also have a more complete picture about this story? Many thanks for your time.--L736E (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, on it.wiki, if someone wants a debate involving him/her to be blanked, we normally ask the person to raise a specific OTRS request, so we have on one side the assurance that it's the real involved person who's asking and on the other side, everything is properly tracked with all the usual OTRS assurances. We normally don't blank a discussion (unless the community reaches a consensus on that) just upon a simple request from an user, even if registered, just to avoid fake requests or requests coming from fake identities. We did that in the past, when it was the case: we prefer that everything dealing with the protection of the privacy by contents removal, is done following a procedure with the maximum guarantees for everyone, including WMF - and with all information tracked for any possible future needs. Please take into account also another point: in the specific case, we are dealing with someone willing to have a dedicated article on Wikipedia for his own personal visibility and this person is not accepting that the notability of his biography is questioned, even if from a technical point of view there are sound arguments for that. Rather, he prefers that every reference to his name is blanked from it.wiki if his notabilty is not confirmed by the community, because he thinks that if he's considered as "not (enough) notable", this would damage his reputation - in other words: he strongly wants a dedicated article about himself on it.wiki regardless any further considerations. This point has been explicitely confirmed and stated by the user it:user:Dariopicciau on it.wiki. This latter user, who's a single-purpose-account, also explicitly declared he's operating "on direct behalf" of Mr. Malini. My suggestion, to get in touch with one of the OTRS operators on it.wiki, should be useful for you to have a better understanding on how we deal in these situations, and not only on this specific case. --L736E (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't use A7 on books. It's only for people (and groups of people), named animals, web content and organised events. Books have to be prodded or AfDed. Peridon (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was WP:IARing. This and all the other articles on books by this author, plus the article on the author himself, seem to be the work of the same WP:SPA. I suspect astroturfing. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm more used to seeing your sig and didn't realise from the actual name (and redlinked user page...) <8-( Peridon (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the redlinked user page. It's there to help me find the biters. You're not one, though. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

WTF?? You sure about that dude? Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the vandalism you restored, and I also removed the personal information.[1] However, at least one editor is questioning why you removed sourced information about the subject, so you will need to explain the problem on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Rejina Sabur-Cross#Personal information. Feel free to ask if you have any further queries. Thanks for fixing the vandalism, I was merely reverting the edit that added personal information. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to EuroMillions, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Please dont remove references with explanation in the espiecally when there is a discussion ongoingMurry1975 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's quite funny. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Question, since you are admin then, you reverted a spammer, who added a reference, not a wikilink or weblink, but a reference to a site that deals with euro-millions, didnt warn him about spamming and then blocked him, reverted the edit and didnt add a replacement edit, just the same as the IP who seems a bit misguided as to what was being added, he is claiming its a illegal selling site and malicous, borderline NLT. Since you are in the 400 I take it you add a suitable reference yourself, and as an admin warn the IP over edit warring- which the now blocked editor did. And I didnt check you page when adding the template- most experienced editors will revert with a small edit summary at least, so I presumed you had edited but not that much. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not one of the official Euromillions affiliates, it's a commercial site that sells tickets. The user has absolutely no contributions other than linking that site. Join the dots. And not checking the page? Schoolboy error. See WP:DTTR. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it not still a realible source for the reference? Yes school boy err, but so is not using a edit summary while doing something like that. Murry1975 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a reliable source (it's WP:REFSPAM) and the rollback tool does not insert an edit summary - and if you'd looked at the comment above you'd see the magic word "deleted", which is also mentioned in the first comment on my talk page. A good way to handle this is to laugh and say "oops!". Guy (Help!) 21:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Opps! LOL. Thanks for the refspam link bud. Murry1975 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Refspam? Not the only one of itd type. Murry1975 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kill them with fire. Also the EuroMilloins article is dire. It's chock full of cruft. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I noticed that you template-protected the article Halla Diyab. I'm sure this was just a mis-click or oversight (and you're not the first to do it). If there is a specific reason for this (which is possible and allowed), please note that on the talk page. I figured I would let you know directly so that you could take care of it. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it. I'll fix it. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear guy,

I am concerned when reading the chirorpactic page that it has been hijacked and presents a highly biased point of view by QuackGuru. Would this be able to be fixed as an administrator?

Regards, DJFryzy — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJFryzy (talk • contribs) 08:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You would not like what would happen if I was allowed to control that article, believe me. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply DJFryzy (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is "Channelregister" a reliable UK site? [2] The VSP is obviously real, but the "exceeding expectations" seems to be something ive not heard elsewhere, and in light of the rumored "bloodbath" layoffs seems unlikely? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a VSP. Nobody I work with is eligible, we all have strategic skills (cloud, virtualisation, datacenter transition etc). It's normal after an LBO. Same happened when I worked for SunGard, IIRC. I can talk more about it later in the year. Channel Register is a bit tabloidish on this kind of thing, IMO. The bit about EQL being replaced by CML technology? Not any time soon. EQL walks out of the door unaided, we can't ship it fast enough. Everybody who has it, loves it. CML was a fantastic acquisition, its price was softened by its weak hardware platform, and we are the world's largest OEM server vendor, according to the info I have. The site where I'm working now has CML arays, they love them. They don't really compete in the same accounts. EQL is very popular with small & medium, CML sells mainly to larger midrange, enterprise and hosting companies. All this is, of course, just my personal impression as a storage dude, and I certainly don't speak for Dell. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, my entire division was immune since we were just bought, and part of the software division. That part that mainly confused me was that more people had taken the VSP than expected, because I hadn't heard that anywhere else. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The rumour mill said some of that, but I've not seen any evidence. Applications may have exceeded quota, anybody with transferable skills will bite your hand off for a payout right now since people are hiring left right and centre. A couple of mates who were on the WFR programme before Christmas are minted now! Lucky sods :-) Guy (Help!) 23:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I ended up declining the speedy for Lindsay Deutsch. I don't think she passes notability guidelines as a whole, but she has enough of an assertion of notability to where she just barely passes speedy criteria. WP:AfD would probably be best here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• You noticed that it was written by a family member? It's G11 as well as A7. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A note on the talk explaining this edit would have been helpful. Thanks. Soham 18:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit history is pretty much self-explanatory, I reckon. Look at the edit histories of the contributors. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am only trying to improve the chiropractic article. If there is a specific problem with a particular edit I can fix it. Please help. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read your comment. Is there any changes I made you want me to fix or change. I am more than happy to improve the article. Is there a specific sentence you want me to delete or rewrite. Any changes I made you specifically disagree with I can fix it. Please let me know what you want me to fix. I think we can work together on fixing the article or if you prefer I take a break from chiropractic. Let me know what you want me to do. QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? This is not about any specific change to the article it's about:

• Large numbers of substantial changes, overwhelming anyone else's ability to review them
• Reflex reversion of any edits to your text
• Behaving as if you WP:OWN the article
• Dysfunctional communication with other users, rarely extending beyond terse assertions that you are right

That sort of thing. Exactly as in the RfC. It's not content you need to change, it's the way you use Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I can make small changes rather than large changes such as only one section of an article at a time and discuss the changes.

I can discuss changes I want to make on the talk page rather than reflex reversions.

Even when I think I am right I can move on rather continuing to discuss the matter.

I understand I don't own chiropractic and I can take a break from pseudoscience articles. With your help I can improve my approach to editing Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is against you on this. It's not as if this is your first go-round. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I do want to change and I will change the way I use and edit Wikipedia. I will change the way I comment on the talk page. I will restrict my edits. I am changing my behaviour. I am moving on from the content dispute we had at chiropractic. I made a mistake by sticking to policy and now understand even if text is sourced it should not overrule editorial discretion. I am sorry I was wrong. And I am sorry for pissing you off. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I do accept your offer of an edit restriction. If you want to try an edit restriction instead I will abide by it. But I think for the main chiropractic article I should not edit that article for a very long time. I think a clean break from editing the main chiropractic article is best for me. I would like to edit other related articles such as Chiropractic controversy and criticism. If you accept an edit restriction for me it can be imposed with my agreement. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is also acceptable to me if the article was restored to the previous version before the changes I made to the article. I should not have made so many changes at one time. This edit by another editor gave me the wrong idea about my edits. It should of been discussed and consensus gained first. I should work better at collaboration and I will accept edits I disagree with to the articles I edit. QuackGuru (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't want you to think I'm, in any way, hostile to your note on this article's talk page, because I'm not. I'd like to give people a fair chance. But the more I look at the actual sources available for this subject, the more it seems like someone who got a spike of favourable attention in 2012 for buying out a competing "public shaming" business with worse ethics, and nothing but self-promotion and press releases after that. The CBS Go story and the interview with Anderson Cooper are the highest attention he got among usable sources. The second party interviews about bullying were all related to his purchase and later interviews seem to all have COI issues with them. Anyway, I didn't want you to think I was removing stuff without reason, beyond WP:V and WP:NPOV, and I'm also not trying to antagonize the subject of the article, but we can't source an article to old press releases. I hope you see what I'm trying to say. (I hadn't heard of this guy before his article was mentioned on the RS noticeboard.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and you are definitely not the problem. He did not buy a competing business, though, he is not in the least favourable to bullying, it's just that his pursuit of those he accuses of bullying turns out to be every bit as bad. The intractable nature of the problem is indeed a solid indication that there are simply not very many sources discussing him. Removing poorly cited material is always acceptable, so please keep it up. Do you think the article needs to be merged to another? Guy (Help!) 08:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have a problem with there being an article on the subject although it is arguably close to WP:BLP1E if it only covers the Site-purchasing. Right now, I see that he has garnered notability for exactly two things; having a public shaming business and shutting down a different public shaming business. The earlier articles are interviews with him promoting and defending Cheaterville.com and the concept of public shaming and rumour-repeating as social benefits. The article does not currently reflect the early coverage based only on his defence of his infidelity-shaming site. The later articles are about his role in the other guy's downfall and a bit of coverage about the lawsuit after, but the headlines show this story isn't primarily about him though he's an important actor in it. As far as his requests, I don't think it's appropriate to give more attention to other lawsuits his company's involved with if they haven't been covered by better second party sources. They might be important news to the subject himself, but there's always the danger that Wikipedia could be drawn into talking about legal battles without being able to point to a secondary source for the assertions. In the end, I still believe that a smaller but bulletproof-verifiable article serves everybody, Wikipedia and subject, better than an article that tries to say more than it knows to please someone. An appearance of over-promotion or elaboration actually harms the subject of an article, even when they request it themselves.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

All good points which I have made to him before. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it appropriate/necessary to notify those who commented at AN but not at the RfC of the latter's existence? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's already linked. I think this goes next to AE, since the admins don't seem to want to take it on themselves. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. A big concern I have about anything less than an indef ban is the difficulty (like we're having right now, with this damned time sink of an RfC, WP:AN etc) in re-sanctioning a user who comes back with the same patterns. Is there a truly workable way to make sure an editor who is finite-banned would be on a really short leash upon their return, and that converting to an indef-ban wouldn't take lots and lots of time? I'm really not sure there is: involved/informed editors come and go; new eyes unfamiliar with the history appear pleading for leniency; and so on. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for a time sink Arbcom would be it. The first thing you need is decent recent evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not do this again [3] Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So you are absolutely determined to be an idiot? On your own head be it. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is creating an article on Lyndsey Turner blocked? She's a director with major credits directing plays in the West End, Royal Shakespeare Company and Broadway. She was even nominated for one of the most prestigious awards in London theatre. I just don't get why users can't create an article for her but there are articles for expsychowives.com or some other insignificant person.61.6.218.150 (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are just a few articles that http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Interview-with-Lyndsey-Turner-Director-20131213#.UwWbv_mSzTo http://www.roundabouttheatre.org/Shows-Events/Machinal/Machinal-Cast-and-Creative.aspx http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/nov/08/evening-standard-theatre-awards-national-directors http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/sep/20/benedict-cumberbatch-to-play-hamlet http://www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/news/09-2013/benedict-cumberbatch-teams-with-director-lyndsey-t_31993.html

• I have already made the situation clear, you are evading your block and are not welcome. Please go away and forget that Wikipedia even exists. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JzG. It appears that you speedily deleted the article Robert Multrare as a re-creation by a blocked user. You might want to either close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Multrare, or else note that you deleted the article. Cnilep (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

...for your thoughtful response on the talk page of the Quack Guru RfC/U. I had posted a reply, but reverted myself because it was becoming too off-topic. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts, and your balanced and nuanced position on the meritocracy question. Best, BMK (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a page called Draft:Niama-Reisser Technology with the comment (Obvious error, there is no Draft: nameapsace)

Guess what? There is a Draft: namespace. Take a read of Wikipedia:Drafts. It's for pages not ready for article space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. It was spam anyway, and the creator is threatening to sue Wikipedia for violating his non-existent legal right to advertise here, but thanks. You learn something every day - amazing to find something so fundamental only after however many years here. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's a very new namespace. The Wikipedia:Drafts page was only created in December of last year. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)