User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:55, 4 February 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Jun-2025. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.

Happy New Year!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Happy New Year! (Template:Lang-uk, Template:Lang-ru). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

To-do

List of episodes for The Nick Cannon Show - dozens of one line articles need merging into the list. Shw cancelled due to low ratings, unlikely that there will ever be sufficient interest to justify articles on every episode.

NLP, COI, and possible solutions

Hi Guy. It occurred to me to look into the NLP archives for some long term solutions. The problem seems to be long term promotional activities and incivility. The incivility is contained to some extent though on the main article so I believe can be easily managed as long as there are editors there willing to promote civility and get along.

The COI issues are becoming more clear. The anonymous editor (58.178.141.147) seems to be the most argumentative and uncivil at present – calling for blocks on the article and in edit summaries – and restoring argumentative phrasing and debate into the article. There seems to be 2 possibilities. It could be that 58.178.141.147 is the previous editor [1]. The approach is the same according to a brief search: [2]. The user is editing by presenting lists of non-conclusive articles, obscuring science views, and adding or restoring very argumentative phrasing into the article. Alternatively a brief Google IP check (giving an Australian IP (can’t be sure)) shows it may instead be a meatupppet of Comaze [3] who was editing previously and has an obvious COI. They work in the same town and are part of the same organization as I presented before on ANI.

I understand that there will probably always be at least some meatpuppeting from the pro side and its easy to hide so there’s nothing much we can do about it apart from keep tabs on dominating groups and verbally discourage it.

COI issues will also be pretty hard to deal with as its even easier to hide.

The ANI notices seem to have helped to some extent. The basic fact (NLP is sci unsupported) has become easier to present now and the proponent group are presently not pushing to add argumentative information to it – though they are resisting to present the finding in summarized form. The basic criticism is still being denied though (that NLP is pseudoscientific/misleading and is inappropriate for clinical psych – HRM – self development…..). ANI seems to be a good place to present information for scrutiny – though I’m looking for other useful venues.

Presently the group seems to be quite dismissive of both ANI and non-promoters alike. For now though - I’ll continue to calmly point out the need to clearly present most relevant critical science views - and cycle the appeals to civility and the need to get along on Wikipedia. AlanBarnet 09:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are signs of agreement in some areas now (especially clearly distinguishing critical views). I have also had some helpful encouragement from Woohookitty [4] with respect to summarizing the article. This is clearly summarizing with NPOV suppression of information taken into account. From what I have seen of Woohookitty's prior suggestions on the article - obscuring key critical views through promotion was a problem. User 58 (probably user FT2 I believe) is continuing to be dismissive of ANI assessments and those who hold a non promotional view [5] - using slightly uncivil statements in edit summary also [6]. AlanBarnet 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Guy, you restored histories for Bought Science and Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) while they are on deletion review. I've now cited the sources that they are copyright violations of there, so WP:CSD#G4 definitely applies, but I don't want to reverse another administrators actions. GRBerry 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away, I was just ensuring that nobody could possibly filibuster the thing, one look at the content is more than enough to satisfy any rational person that this has no place here, copyvio or not. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture assistance

Hi Guy ! Earlier, I had written to the University of Heidelberg for permission to use the picture of Gerhard von Rad but did not get any reply - I had matter-of-factly stated that I wish to upload it onto Wikipedia. After waiting for a while, I had uploaded the picture. As an Administrator, may I request you to suggest me possible ways to get back the picture. I've seen your edits on Victor Premasagar - thanks for the same.Pradeep 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are asking. Have you lost the original, or are you trying to get an image with unknown copyright reinstated? If the former I can mail it to you, if the latter then I am not too comfortable with that. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Hi Guy! You deleted the article for Dupobs on the grounds that it did not assert Notability. The band includes a member of A Spectre Is Haunting Europe (which was noted in the article), which meets Notability guidelines. I think it should be restored because of crossover in band membership (Notability Criterion 6 - "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"). Could you please restore it?--jeandjinni talk

That criterion is badly worded. These are not criteria for notability, they are indicators that notability criteria might be met. Notability criteria are, as for all articles, multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to jump in here, but the criterion has also been included in WP:MUSIC for quite a while with minimal complaint and no efforts to change it. Maybe there weren't sources, but that's not a speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I know you reverted the guideline back to allowing all these as criteria which on their own establish notability, but the previous version was correct, because without sources it doesn't matter how many records are sold, we can't have an article without violating fundamental policy. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're talking about two different things. Apples and oranges. Things can have the requisite sources without being "notable." Besides, I'm not even sure why WP:N is a guideline - it directs people to the specific guidelines for different subjects - and the way you changed it back - again without discussion - weakens the whole thing. And your speedy was still improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it wasn't without discussion. Can you come up with an example of something which has multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources but is not notable? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did over at WP:N. Are you going to force me over to DRV on Dupobs? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there, where this particular thread can continue. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the WP:N page asserts that the N guideline "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", a reasonable and prudent editor would defer to the more specific guidelines about Notability for music as indicated on WP:MUSIC, where any one of a number of criteria are acceptable as evidence of being notable. If the criterion is "badly worded", explain why, and make the argument to change it. As it stands the article was speedily deleted because you didn't agree with the wording on WP:MUSIC, not because the article was inconsistent with the guidelines. The article should be restored.--jeandjinni talk

No, it was deleted because it made no claim to notability and because another editor tagged it as such. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, please restore the article. First of all, dupobs contains a member of a group that meets notability guidelines. Second, I suspect the deletion was instigated by unfamiliarity with what concerns dupobs (i.e., their conceptual art take on the marketing of pop music), and their uniqueness. I think this is the case because a past contribution I wrote, on "man-made trance" was deleted: I didn't protest the deletion because the article was merely a stub, but the deletion of man-made trance was clearly a case of someone not being familiar with the concept, and the fact that there is little English language information on this topic: the term "man-made trance" was coined by the Japanese band Rovo. I believe something similar has happened with the dupobs article. In any case, please trust that many contributors to Wikipedia do have specialized areas of knowledge and that their contributions are made with good reason. I hope to see the dupobs article back up sometime soon.

Cube World

Why did you delete it man? I want to learn about it.Pendo 4 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4[reply]

Alientrap

You deleted the Alientrap article for lack of nobility, But it linked to this: www.alientrap.org/verm/nexuiz.jpg How is that not enough? Revert the deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.168.4 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That was definitely a Non-Noble (NN) subject. Nobility was not demonstrated! All Wikipedia articles must have Nobility! :) 131.111.8.99 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four maintenance tags and no claim of notability. I unlinked the copyright violating jpeg (WP:C). Guy (Help!) 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Image for WP:NCR

I've made a new, free and more formal image for WP:NCR. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads

Jeffrey Gustafson recreated Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC proposal

FYI, this proposal is actually getting a bit of comment now, after a few days of gathering dust; however, the comments thus far seem to be indicating that I may have misread the desire for something to actually be done with RfC/User to make it work a bit more smoothly. (And one person called it added bureaucracy despite the numerous indications that it's not supposed to be one, of course; I should have expected that.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Score (magazine)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Score (magazine). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Additional) - I am requesting that recreation protection be removed. Although the previous version of the article was little more than a stub, this has been a major magazine for the last 12 years or so and is also a video producer. I could find no indication (via the history) that this went through AFD. I attempted to restore the page but it appears the protection must be removed by the admin who protected it. 23skidoo 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura

Hey there, I just read the page you have on Laura, and I must say, I feel your loss, and for what little it may be worth, I am sorry. I won't say I wished it turned out differently, or somesuch, because I know how empty those words seem when you've lost someone, but what I will say, is having lost many myself, I know how it feels. People say over time it fades, and maybe it does, but it never gets any easier to deal with. I'm not going to be around Wikipedia much any more due to personal problems, but I'll be keeping an eye on my talk page. Drop me a note if you ever need anything. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb regarding Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs)

I have completely revised my statement in regards to this RfArb I started regarding administrator User:Lucky 6.9. In particular, given a couple days to reflect on others' comments, I make a substantially different point, completely unrelated to furthering accusations toward the administrator. I would appreciate if you'd take a quick glance. Link Reswobslc 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate of Serampore College (University)

You deleted this article as the pushing of a diploma mill - as the place is 200 years old and does appear to kosher this seems rather harsh! The author is re-working and tidying it as a sub page and them plans to re-introduce it - this sounds okay to me. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the senate of serampore university was being represented as an accreditation body. I'm sure Serampore University is valid, I am not sure that the senamte of that body is a separate entity and I am sure that the senate article was being used to Gastroturf unaccredited institutions. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User bazzajf vandalsim

Please, I am enquiring as to whether you can do anything with this user. The Research PC available to myself and my university colleagues for afterhours research is often used by this user bazzajf also. For whatever reason, whenever he uses this PC on Wikipedia for his editing, the whole IP address gets blocked once he has logged in as himself on this IP and my colleagues and I are unable to have editing privilege because of this, is there anything that can be done? 62.77.181.16 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.161.68.238

Removing his comments from my talk page will not prevent me from reading them, you know. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you warn Dino about legal threats?

I believe that, considering Dino claims to be a member of Free Republic/Jim Robinson's legal team, these two posts from today (especially the second) constitute 'vieled' implicated threats. LINK Please look at my latest edits to the Free Republic article. I've been a 'good boy'. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a redirect?

I'd imagine this would be largely uncontroversial. JB196's unpublished "book" currently has a redirect to the Xtreme Pro Wrestling article. The original article was deleted via Afd, yet a version of the article is in the page history. I can't see a relevant speedy category, but I'm sure one must apply? Thanks One Night In Hackney 21:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Nuke-O-Spam deployed. Was created by User:Paulley, by the way. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure why it was created to start with, as the original article hadn't been deleted at that point anyway. One Night In Hackney 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undo

Hi. I'm catching up a bit. What's with this undo option on diffs? Sometimes it appears and sometimes it doesn't. And the only time I've pressed it it refused giving an edit conflict. Stephen B Streater 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite cool, it will undo a single edit provided there are no intervening edits which touch the same text. It doesn't work all the time, but sometimes it can save all sorts of effort. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is cool. For example, some vandalism which has been missed can still be undone easily :-) Stephen B Streater 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fensteren

Can you explain your block of this user? How was this user self-evidently a sockpuppet? Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread - he was invited by one of the warring parties on the Free Republic article to participate in an RfC and other processes based on his sage input before he made his first edit to that article or its talk page, which makes him either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, I don't care which. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was based on his "sage input" to a related meatpuppet investigation. It's unfortunate that your misunderstanding of what I was referring to has led to the permablocking of an intelligent contributor who never edited the Free Republic article, and was not in the slightest way disruptive. Anyway, your efforts to delegitimize the RfC have failed, and you are again cordially invited to comment there regarding the conduct of BenBurch. In light of your expressed concerns about WP:COI and his founding of a [virulent anti-Bush website] trying to prove the Bush Administration is fascist, BenBurch's editing of an article about an organization he describes as "a rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" raises a legitimate WP:COI concern, wouldn't you agree? Dino 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Fensteren (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). A couple of edits to Panther tank, one to M1 Garand rifle, nothing for a week, reply to a welcome message, and his sixth edit was to the vexatious BenBurch sockpuppet investivgation started by User:BryanFromPalatine using his block-evading sockpuppet User:ClemsonTiger and pursued by you. Actually that's not the whole story - on Jan 24, Fensteren created BenBurch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), using the RFCU boilerplate - in other words we have an account created, makes a couple of trivial edits and can then create a new page, in this case an RFCU request. You're asking me to believe that this is an independent user who just happens to know lots about Wikiprocess and pursue precisely the same vendetta as BryanFromPalatine? Seriously? Ask ArbCom to review that one, I'm not unblocking it. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's already explained why there was "nothing for a week." He went looking for conflicts behind the scenes at Wikipedia: "I looked at the Protest Warrior, Free Republic, and Democratic Underground articles since I suspected that they would be flashpoints for conflict and this was immediately confirmed." Then he figured out Wikiprocess: "I quickly learned about diffs, talk pages, archives and about contribution histories." It's user-friendly. There are little blue links everywhere. Then he correctly identified the source of the conflict: "I looked for the cause of this fight in the archives of the fighters."

But if you're comfortable with your decision, that's fine.

Do you have anything at all to say about BenBurch's conduct? Will you ever have anything to say about that topic? Or are you just going to avoid any mention of that topic forever? Dino 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incidence of genuinely new users who pitch straight into long-running disputes with evident knowledge of Wikiprocess is vastly lower than the incidence of sockpuppets and meatpuppets doing the same. So much so that the latter is the default assumption, especially we are talking about a user who has a dozen or so confirmed or suspected sockpuppets already. And when they are congratulated for their perceptive input before they've made it, the obvious becomes the farcical. You want to argue this case? Take it to ArbCom.

As for the rest, I've said before that you should think twice before coming to a parent with "look what he did! he started it!" - it's not like I don't get that every day at home. The phrase "a plague on both your houses" sums it up just nicely. I do not give a toss about those articles and never did, I do give a toss about Mr. Hat wasting people's time and harrassing other editors. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my Cabal! Remind me to teach you the passwords and secret handshake! :-)--BenBurch 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a SSP case on this

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DeanHinnen which seemed necessary since Dean is representing to en-unblock-l that this was some sort of revenge block. --BenBurch 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll forgive me for being blunt, that idea has a DeGarmo coefficient of approximately 1.0. You are absolutely the very last person who should be doing this, all you will do is escalate the conflict. I am minded to go and nuke it right now. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations

Please take a look here and please comment.

I was acting in good faith when I requested you to delete the info as a part of my attempts to regain a bit of my privacy. Thanks for doing so. I wasn't aware you had done it until Ilena alerted me to it. I'll of course back her up about the fact that I have previously revealed personal info about myself. I have never denied that I have done so.

Since she has brought her Usenet wars here to Wikipedia, I have become more concerned about my own and my family's security and have begun deleting my uses of my own name, as well as other's use of it, as my edit history will reveal, starting about here. I searched Wikipedia and deleted several places where I have foolishly (in restrospect) used my real name.

It appears that the edit history of my user page has been deleted too far, so as to even delete the evidence of Ilena's vandalism of my user page!

That deletion has naturally removed her actions from her own edit history as well. Maybe the whole thing should be restored until the RfArb is over. Can that be done? My timing was apparently bad, so maybe we can wait and do this after it's all over. It won't remove her revealing of our (several other editors as well) identities, which she has done on her attack websites (I have been sent a long list of them), but at least it will make it more difficult for various trolls and weirdos to hassle me. -- Fyslee 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do want to have the deletion undone. Ilena should not be able to use my good faith attempts to protect my privacy as another excuse to exercise bad faith and accuse me of wrongdoing. -- Fyslee 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cyber Nations under Cat 4

This aticle should not of been "speedy deleted" as the notability and content of the artical has now significantly changed from the previous deletions.

How do i appeal?
The text for this article was created with some considerable time input, i would like a copy of the text to host off WP.

Bjrobinson 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time to delet this page, you shoudl have the time to reply to my simple request. The talk page was also of value, can this be resurrected?

Plases respond —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjrobinson (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You can have it back shortly. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boobpedia links

hi again guy. i noticed that you removed two links i put up to boobpedia articles. i appreciate that you gave reasons, and would like to discuss this with you. we might as well clarify what is acceptable to both of us, instead of having you waste valuable time trying to check me up every few days :)

first the link to [7] that i put in the Serena Grandi article. you commented that "Link appears to serve no purpose other than to promote the site". if i actually take the time to migrate some of the information from the boobpedia article to improve wikipedia's entry, and reference boobpedia instead of just linking to it, would this be satisfactory to you?

second the link to [8] that i put in the Karma Rosenberg article, because it contained euro filmography not found in IAFD and IMDB. your comment was "Spam link, not a relaible source". this i must respectfully disagree. the boobpedia article contains extensive links to actual DVD covers and screenshots, where you can not only verify her by name, but by visual. if anything, this is even more reliable than IAFD and IMDB, which only lists by name, and in rare occurences two porn stars with the same name get mixed up on those sites.

btw: if you have the fear that if you ever allowed one boobpedia link on wikipedia, i'd go around and spam hundreds of articles, that is not going to happen. thanks for reading and i look forward to resolving this issue with you. regards. --Hexvoodoo 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of external links is to provide for further research and to give additional detail. Linking to unreliable sources is not what external links are for. There are several websites that have been spammed to multiple Wikipedia entries inna "me too" stylee, I remove them. It's just another fansite, just a generic tit fan site rather than a fansite for an individual, there is no discernible encyclopaedic merit in linking to it. If we allowed that, before you know where we are every bit of sexcruft would have links to arsepedia, clitpedia, footpedia and a hundred other generic pedias. If we don';t have enough information from good sources, the solution is to delete as non-notable not to add bad ones. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think the key is that you consider boobpedia to be one of the "unreliable sources". while i don't know what the other websites that you referred to are, i can safely say boobpedia is not "just a generic tit fan site", but a reference site where rules similar to wikipedia are applied. just a couple of examples off the top of my head. a visitor started adding POV comments to several pages such as "she is considered one of the top 10 models of all time". another changed the weight of one model from 157 lbs to 170 lbs without any source. in both cases the changes were quickly reverted, just like they would be on wikipedia. in fact, the same user (same IP) changed the weight of Kerry Marie from 157 to 170 on wikipedia, and also got reverted. if you read articles on boobpedia, you'll find neutral language, sources, and even original interviews with models. for example, we recently interviewed sofia rose. you will find no glowing praise or fan infactuation in the article, only point of fact and neutral language. this is certainly different from generic fan sites, wouldn't you agree?

i agree that arsepedia may be silly. but if, for example, arsepedia is edited under similar rules as wikipedia, and has an article containing well-written and sourced information not found in wikipedia, then i really don't see why wikipedia shouldn't reference it. we should deal with the substance of the linked page itself, not how silly the name of the site is. we go back to the karma rosenberg link. if a site called "karma rosenberg resource" listed her complete filmography, including many not found in IAFD and IMDB, and linked to DVD covers and screenshots that proved she was in those films, it certainly would have been a good link for the wikipedia article. objectively, it would have been an even better reference page than IAFD or IMDB. on boobpedia we are trying to achieve that kind of reliability, and i hope you won't dismiss it out of hand. even though i admit our first interaction may have tainted your view of boobpedia ;), i think you are a rational guy who can see past that and give boobpedia an objective second look. i'm not asking you to accept it completely, just the two articles i mentioned earlier, and the reasoning i've put forth. thanks --Hexvoodoo 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name the editorial board, detail their peer-review process, and in particular describe the means they use to verify that the measurements and other bio data cited are not (as is usual in the porn industry) as inflated as some of the subjects' mammaries. A reliable source is not one that you think has "good" information (for some value of good), it is one that has processes and a reputation which ensure that it is actually reliable. IMDB is not particularly reliable, IAFD is markedly worse. And the knockout punch here is "we". See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, most external links on wikipedia don't have editorial boards. in fact most external links have far fewer editors than boobpedia (most of the time just the one webmaster). boobpedia has a meeting place that editors post todo lists [9], but most of the discussion between editors takes place on user talk pages. you can take a look at my user page on boobpedia [10] and see the discussion that took place. if you want you can also look at the user page of another administrator [11].

for the peer-review process, i had earlier given two examples. but here's another one. one user recently created an article for Zena Fulsom, and claimed she had ZZZ cup breasts, with a photo showing her extremely large boobs. suspicious, i went to the source of the photo (scoreland.com, watermarked on the uploaded photo), and confirmed the photo had not been digitally manipulated. i then got info from an adult photographer that the photo was done with a latex prosthetics. subsequently i put in the "myth of ZZZ cup breasts" section.

to be realistic, short of walking up to the model with a measuring tape, one has to use published measurements, knowing that sometimes they are inflated. if a model has a homepage, or has done an interview with boobpedia, measurements are given by her. if a model appears on a particular site, measurements are sometimes obtained from the people who photographed her. in other times, measurements have to come from sources such as IMDB or IAFD. unfortunately i don't think there is a better way to do this. even IMDB has to use published measurements most of the time

i hope this has adequately discribed the process boobpedia uses. keep in mind that i started this by talking about two specific articles, and asked for your input on them. i'm not asking you for blanket acceptance of boobpedia, as you seem to be requiring me to prove :). as for the word "we", it simply meant all the boobpedia editors. just like you might use "we do this at wikipedia" to someone unfamiliar with wikipedia. --Hexvoodoo 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're digging a deeper hole here. We don't do original research, and the fact that your site does makes it worse, not better. Snopes shows you how real investigation of fakes is done; they are considered pretty reliable. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know wikipedia doesn't do original research. it doesn't mean it makes sense for boobpedia to not do its own research. you are conflicting yourself here. first you mentioned exaggerated measurement claims (which is a shortcoming of the porn industry) as a bad thing, then you said actually trying to find out the information is bad. yes snopes is a great site. it also has a wealth of sources for its many subjects. the only absolute way to get a 100% accurate measurement of a model is to actually measure her. (btw, you also used the word "we" ;)

i still hope you'll address the two articles i mentioned originally. and why you considered a well referenced and complete filmography as a spam link. regards. --Hexvoodoo 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. Conflict of interest. Enough said. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

guy, i have addressed every issue you've raised. i'm afraid you have decided not to directly respond to any particular argument i've made, but instead gave blanket judgement without attempting to deal with the substance of the links (ie. why is a well referenced and complete filmography, not found anywhere else on the web, considered a spam link by you). as for conflict of interest, you latched on to my use of the word "we", while you used "we" in the very next response. it's certainly not conflict of interest if you were to reference wikipedia somewhere else. i'm disappointed by this attitude. hopefully you'll give this another thought at a later time. --Hexvoodoo 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confusing not responding with not giving the response you wanted to hear. There is a difference. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let's review this one step at a time. your first response had "The purpose of external links is to provide for further research and to give additional detail". much additional details are in fact given in the boobpedia karma rosenberg filmography, details not found anywhere else on the web. you next questioned the reliability of boobpedia, and asked many questions such as naming the editorial board, peer-review process, fact-finding method etc. these questions are not asked for the majority of wikipedia external links, but i understood your general skepticism regarding all adult sources, so i answered them one by one nevertheless. you only responded with, original research was bad. when i pointed out that if traditional adult sources were sometimes unreliable (as we both agree), thus requiring research, you did not respond to that either.

your argument appears to be to question the reliability of boobpedia as a whole. you brought up numerous questions (or tests), and i answered them for you. my point was not to establish boobpedia as the big boob equivalent of IMDB in your mind; my original post was about the actual substance of the two links. this is what i hope you will respond to directly - if the boobpedia karma rosenberg article contains well referenced (filmography by name and visually through dvd covers and screenshots) and unique information not found anywhere else on the web, why do you think such information should not be referenced from wikipedia? i thank you for taking time to talk about this. --Hexvoodoo 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Occupational therapy link removals

Hi. Alright, perhaps the use of the word "crazed" was a little harsh, however I think you may have missed my point. The removal of the external links was not the problem - I agree that that page was a complete mess and in urgent need of rationalising. My objection was to Peter's careless attitude to deleting as fast as possible without checking beforehand for "collateral damage" as User:DavidD. has also pointed out on his talk page. I did in fact leave a (reasonably) polite comment for him at the time, but received a typically curt reply. Quite frankly, even if you regard him as "a respected editor", I find his behaviour quite alarming. His remarks are often officious, dismissive, and ignore others' well-founded opinions, as the contents of his his talk page demonstrates. Anyway, it's not my place to complain about another user on a page other than their own, so I'll stop now. I hope you'll agree that I had not, however, intended to be offensive. Cheers, DWaterson 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was just an honest mistake, just like a typo or something. Honestly, it's amazingly easy to do if you've been editing subsections of the links and then hit the last subsection or the top section. Peter is not evil and not generally slap-dash, and his response was simply a factual one-liner - that it was not an automated edit. Maybe he was in a hurry or busy or something. I know it is distracting when the yellow bar comes up in the middle of a lengthy investigation or some such. Also, if you look in detail at Peter's talk page, you'll see that he gets trolled a fair bit, and also that he has some pretty terrible things going on in his personal life right now. Anyway, you've acknowledged it was harsh, and that's enough. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genius

That is all. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I actually surprised myself with this idea. :-) —David Levy 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But do they really need to go through TfD again? The suggestion was that (all 4 templates) could be speedied per G4...? --Quiddity 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested

Could you look at this from ANI? It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

User:Kdbuffalo/SavedStuff - I don't understand the issue. AFAIK, leeway is allowed to userpages, and often users use their usepages as a "sandbox" of sorts. How is this any different? - jc37 11:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that deleted articles which are being worked on are fine, deleted articles which are being kept despite being deleted and without anyone working on them are a violation of WP:NOT a free web host (and probably WP:CSD#G4). It was suggested on the admin noticeboard that we quietly prod them, rather than kick up a fuss, and some suggested we prod articles as we userfy them to make it clear that this is for workup, not for permanent hosting. That seems a bit harsh. This was, however, a personal essay masquerading as an article, a pretence that the scientific consensus is somehow under threat, and as such not really appropriate in userspace. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I apparently missed the AN discussion, thanks for the clarification : ) - jc37 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Your comments are invited at the last thread, i.e. Cindery's block review. My LCD screen lies punctured at home, and I would not be able to connect to the internet as frequently as I did earlier, at least for this month. I need to pass all my exams. ^_^ Have a nice day! — Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already there, mate. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badly Done Stalking

How much longer am I going to have to put up with Badlydrawnjeff's continual stalking of me? This is the second time he has alleged to have a brandspankingnew article that I have become involved in on his "Watchlist" - it's utter and complete nonsense. -> [12] [13]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not stalking, but rather disrupting Wikipedia to his own ends. He has a reputation for wanting to keep articles, and isn't afraid to walk over people to push that agenda. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, Jeff is actually OK. No, really. He has quite possibly the lowest inclusion threshold in the project, but his heart is in the right place. Do try talking to him, and not about contentious inclusions. My experience is that he is well aware that his views are away from the centre of gravity, but that he is sincere and genuine. He annoys all of us, but he is right often enough to repay the effort of learning to respect, if not like him. I.know that does not help. I am on the Blackberry now, so can't be as detailed as I might be. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's okay. But I moderate my dosages :-) ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

JzG, can you have a look at Talk:World energy resources and consumption please? I've asked the editor four times now to stop removing and altering talk page entries - he persists. I'm trying to get {{ArticleHistory}} templates in place on failedfacs, and this one article has been quite a distraction. Talk page entries have now been removed for the fourth time, in spite of me asking him three times to refrain, and quoting to him the policy on removing and altering talk page entries of other editors. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Benfer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Esn 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

Guy,

I appreciate your spending time on this dispute. Below is the note I wrote to Sandy on her Talk page.

Sandy,

I do believe you are being particularly hostile to my efforts to create a world class write up. So far all have gotten from you is negative criticism. Not one comment that was helpful and regretfully not a single edit that improved the article at hand.

Now I don't want to be in some personal tit for tat. I will continue to delete your personal attacks because I find them distracting, I believe they de-motivate other editors and they not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia.

I want to complete this article and make it a succinct source of high quality information supported by understandable and readable graphics. I think Energy is one of the most important issues of our time and it helps the discussion if everyone can have access to the facts.

So in summary, if you edit and help to make this a good article you presence is appreciated. If you just want to throw the rule book around and have no tangible input please go elsewhere.

PS I think you are probably a decent person. You are certainly a prolific Wikipedian.:)

I am trying to create a world class page. All criticisme of the article is welcome and I am certainly open to new ideas. Sandy seems like a genuinly productive Wikipedian most of the time. In this particular case her behaviour has been very demotivating and couter productive. I think it would be best if she leaves this article alone. I am getting al lot of great help from Beagel, Gralo and Carson. A quick look at the talk page will show that I not only accept suggestions I welcome and encourage them and I have repeately solicited other editors to join in writing the article. To accuse me of vandalisme is a bit unfair given the effort the enormous effort to make this a superb article.

Frank van Mierlo 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are exhibiting all the classic symptoms of WP:OWNing that article, and you are being hostile to Sandy with no obvious justification. One of the things you need to ear in mind when working towards a "world class article" is that your vision of what constitutes a world class article on this topic may well differ from that of other people. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there are different opinions on what is world class. One of the reasons that Wikipedia is such a cool place is that it shows that people can really work out their differences. Please review the talk page, it shows that I have taken on board many suggestions of other people. Yes I do care about this article, that is why I am working on it. Please check the page history to have a look at Sandy's contributions, there are none!

This is not about Sandy not being welcome to edit the article, she is. This is about not accepting negative criticism when a group of people are working to create something great. You, Sandy and I should be writing good articles and stay away from these personal attacks. Frank van Mierlo 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I admire you for taking on the thankless task of reviewing these cases.

No, actually, it's about removing comments made in good faith by a long-standing contributor from a talk page. Sandy finds that insulting. I'm not surprised. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I can understand that point of view. Now can you understand it is insulting to be called a vandal when you have spent over a hundred hours creating a synthesis of a very complex subject? Can you understand it is insulting to have failed FAC in large font the talk page when in fact it was a voluntary withdrawal while we further improve the article. And lastly can you understand it becomes annoying if people just critique by quoting rules rather than making specific proposals or edits to improve the article? Frank van Mierlo 01:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS.PS. I still admire you for taking on the thankless task of reviewing these cases.

I did look at the rules (for the first time) and found the following: If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. I think that applies in this case. Frank van Mierlo 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like a case of megaphone diplomacy. You are showing signs of WP:OWNing that talk page, which is not good, and really I would say that to call it a failed nomination is only insulting if you have extended that WP:OWNership to the article itself. Who cares, actually? The point of the failed nomination template is to give a link to the debate, which is informative. It also says a lot about an article that it's been proposed and discussed. Leave it on there, I would say, until the next nomination. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I still, respectfully, disagree. The link to the FAC discussion is on the talk page. In fact it is in there twice, once in my comments and once in Sandy's. Sandy's complaint is not about having a link, it is there. She is using the system to throw her weight around. This is about her getting revenge because she like all other human beings did not like criticism. (My comments on her talk page were deleted in little less than a nano second) I understand why you might think that I exhibit signs of WP:OWNing however, I have welcomed all constructive criticism. Xyzzy_n, Carson, Gralo and Beagel are all helping to make this a better article and if you check their talk pages you can see that I made and effort to appreciate their help.

In the end you and Sandy will win if you can call it that. I will simply withdraw from Wikipedia. Since you placed the vandalism template on my talk page my contribution has dropped dramatically and I am seriously considering pulling out altogether. This is simply too painful.

I understand how this happens, a person like Sandy is trying to look at an enormous amount of articles and she quickly types her comments on a FAC discussion. I realize this is not malice. That said, her unsigned edit on the FAC discussion was as follows:

Object and refer to peer review - not even close. For starters, what is the source of the data in the graphs? Image placement and size is a problem, resulting in large white spaces.]

Although I understand the drive for quality, and I do not dispute Sandy's good intentions, please note the following:
1. In her hurry to give her opinion she forgot to sign the comment making it harder to accept the criticism.

2. This type of feedback really hurts Wikipedia; it de-motivates good editors and drives people away. Did you know that the number of productive editors in Wikipedia is actually declining at the moment?

3. Careful reading of the article would have revealed that the data was actually referenced. There is a layout problem with this article and so far it has not been solved. The discussion is in the FAC and the Talk page and the current layout is not mine.

So in summary the feedback is too negative and not careful enough. That is OK if it is an isolated case; it becomes a real problem if you have a very prolific Wikipedian doing this to lots of people. I am not asking you to reprimand Sandy I believe she has good intentions. I would just like it if she would leave us alone. Unless of course if she want to help edit the article in which case I will be grateful for all positive contributions.

In the end this discussion is maybe worth your time. Like you I really do believe Wikipedia is a cool place. I also know that you have to dole out two parts praise for every part of criticism to get people to listen to you. Sandy's behavior, despite all her good intentions (and I really believe the latter), is destructive. I admire people like you who are willing to do the admin job and so far all your comments have been fair. The challenge that is on your plate is to decide how you can create a welcoming culture that appreciated the large army of volunteers. How do you harness the enthusiasm of people like Sandy that want to improve quality and channel it so it does not become a stream of negative feedback.

Good Luck with all of that. I hope you succeed.
Frank van Mierlo 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, can you just drop this issue? You were wrong to remove Sandy’s comments on the article’s talk page, especially after being asked not to do that. I don’t see any vandalism templates on your talk page, but Guy’s comment there was well within the norm, given your persistence. I won’t bother citing the policy/guideline pages, so take this as an opinion: you were wrong, accept it, stop wasting time on this issue.

Also please consider Sandy’s comments on the article in the context of WP:WIAFA. It’s really not even close. There was no point in making detailed comments and the problems (which are real; I’m not seeing the references either) are too complex to be fixed during the FAC discussion. The feedback was negative because the article is not yet ready for FAC.

After everything, I doubt Sandy will be interested in further participating on the article’s talk page. I will, however, tag the talk page appropriately anyway. This is about the article and letting future editors know where and when it was reviewed, not about you. —xyzzy_n 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know this discussion was still going on. First, we're not talking about a template; it was only a small, insignificant talk page entry. Second, Mierlo is moving things from a number of places that really make things hard on other editors who try to keep up with various FA categories, templates, etc. The move of the FAC to a non-standard archive, followed by blanking it, requires a lot of other editor work to undo, particularly when several of us are hard at work on moving old FACs to archives in order to install the new {{ArticleHistory}} template. Third, Mierlo, I asked you no less than four times to pls stop altering other people's talk comments; you deleted or altered all of them. That you added my signature to your own comments concerns me. I was fortunate to see it because I was working on syncing the FAC category, and came back to the talk page. Fourth, in spite of having been in charge of the long-term plan for one of the Seven Sisters (I think I may know a thing or two about the subject?), there is no chance I will work on improving an article in this kind of editing environment, so you've lost at least one potential helper. I'm most relieved to see the article is being helped out by the very competent xyzzy_n; now I have a lot of work to do on the conversion to {{ArticleHistory}}. Thanks for the sage advice, JzG, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye and Goodluck to all. User:Mierlo 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

I haven't seen any adminsitrator visiting or editing that particular article, and I think we need assistance, as some users have requested the article to be blocked to all editors, anonymous or registered, given the recent edit wars. User:Corticopia and User:Supaman89 have violated WP:3RR on numerous ocassions but have only been blocked once for doing so over a week ago. It seems no conensus have been reached in spite of thousands of bytes of discussion over what I, personally, consider a trivial issue, in Talk:Mexico, and the edit war continues between three users. Could you please review Mexico history, as well as Talk:Mexico? --the Dúnadan 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admin abuse

Obviously, you have comitted Rouge admin abuse. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many of us do. Amazing how the project manages to function, really. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

[14] Love it! Antandrus (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't laugh out loud, but I should have after reading this. Clearly those Youtube uploaders forgot to place a template with the words "fair use" on it, 'cause, you know, that makes everything okay... Jkelly 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

I would like to call your attention to http://peppersreturns.yt*nd.com/. (replace asterisk with an 'm'). I'm thinking you're under the impression that the Peppers article needs to be deleted post-haste should it return. Thunderbunny 08:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should devote the intervening days to finding the multiple non-trivial independent sources of which he has been the primary subject. We are much firmer about WP:BLP than we were a year ago, and much firmer about sourcing. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This will be an epic shitstorm, I can already tell. I'll bring the huge tubs of popcorn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. Recent results have been pretty unequivocal: without multiple non-trivial sources, no article, especially where WP:BLP is concerned. We seem to have a reasonable accommodation going with YTMNDers at present, maybe it will be a shitstorm in a teacup. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this isn't a YTMND thing, really. We didn't struggle to reach standards then, and I don't think we'll be having a problem with that part of it now. That's why it's going to be interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we did struggle to reach standards, because the only reliable information about the guy pertained to a single event in his life, and any other living individual whose notability was based solely on a conviction for a technical offence where the victim is totally unknown, and which offence gained pretty much no coverage whatsoever even in the local press, would be an immediate and unequivocal delete. So the fact is that this article existed only because some puerile jerks laughed at Peppers' appearance, but any attempt to note this was strongly resisted by the puerile jerks because they don't want people to know that only a puerile jerk would laugh at someone because of a congenital deformity. Merrick he ain't. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one's saying it's not somewhat rotten. We simply don't keep articles away for good because it may be rotten is all. Should be interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:BLP cases, we have done in the past and probably should more often. Mind, as I think I may have made clear before, I have great contempt for those who have so little respect for simple human decency. As far as I can tell (and there really are no decent sources I can find, on Factiva or anywhere else) the guy is disabled, has a congenital deformity, has intellectual impairment, lives in a nursing home. Of that the only thing we can formally verify is that he lives in a nursing home, and that only through original research. So I say: leave the poor bastard alone. Actually it should probably be a link to the Manchester businessman Brian Pepper, who has at least been the subject of a few stories in major newspapers due to raids and seizure of property over alleged links with the IRA. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support what Guy is saying here. If the article is to survive recreation it must have better sourcing than previously. If the motivation of the editors who want it is to gawk at someone who has a congenital deformity (and there appears to be no better reason than that), then the appropriate alternative is to write biographies of circus side show performers. Those people chose to make a livelihood by putting their appearance on display; this man did not. Durova^Charge! 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cube World

Why did you delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pendo 4 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Serially reposted spammy articles with no assertion of notability often get deleted. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mop action needed

I've never wanted to be an admin, but there are times ...

On the issue above, I'm wondering if you have time to mop up the mess?

On the original FAC, Mierlo deleted my Objection, which was rather bold ... I've never actually seen that before at WP:FAC.[15] I gave him the benefit of the doubt, since I hadn't signed. Next he deleted me asking him not to delete comments from the FAC.[16] Then, he moved the FAC to a non-standard name [17] [18], so sorting it all out was fun. I had to re-create the original FAC file via a cut-and-paste; the whole mess really should be undone and re-created correctly.

The original FAC (which was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World energy resources and consumption ) is normally moved to archiven (in this case, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World energy resources and consumption/archive1) for the ArticleHistory template.
Then, the original FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World energy resources and consumption, should be left with only a link to the archive1 file saying former fac. (After we move FACs to archive, we leave a link so the file is ready for the next submission - seems most nominators don't follow instructions, so this leaves the fresh file ready).
I think Wikipedia:Previous Featured article candidates/World energy resources and consumption should be deleted - it was an incorrect, intermediary step.

Sorry for the mess - now I know why they call it a mop ! Appreciate it if you can help restore everything correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me a while to sort out how it should be done, but broadly I agree. I might move the other page to an archive rather than simply delete if there's real content. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Guy - maybe I shoulda called for help sooner, since my cut and pastes probably only made it worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Too hard. Talk me through it once more, step by step, with admin actions described please. I am a bear of little brain. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, ok, give me a minute to lay it out ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh, what a job - if someone wanted to hide an FAC, this would be the way to do it ...I really don't get how he did all of this, which is why I just did a cut and paste to put it back together:

Looking at the article history here, we find the final FAC (before he moved it) three edits back, oldid=103766144 - here.
However he got there, that has to be rolled back to where it came from, at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/World_energy_resources_and_consumption (Never mind that he deleted my object - no longer relevant, not worth worrying about, will be in the edit history.
Then, once the original fac is back in place, it gets moved to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/World_energy_resources_and_consumption/archive1 (which means the current archive 1 has to be deleted.
Then, I think, Wikipedia:Previous Featured article candidates/World energy resources and consumption gets deleted.
Then the redirect left at the original FAC after the move, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/World_energy_resources_and_consumption, gets replaced with former fac so that the next person who comes along to submit a fac via the standard template will find a fresh file, with a link to the old fac.

Normally this is straightforward FAC archival stuff - I've not encountered a mess this big before. Clear as mud? I can actually do steps 3 and 5 myself, if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing something obvious. What needs to be moved to Archive1? It looks as if the archive is already at archive1? Or do I need to merge some history? Sorry to be dense. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL - not dense. What's at the archive file was my cut and paste, in other words, no edit history. The idea is to rollback to avoid my cut and paste fix, and do it right. Maybe it's not worth the effort? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Easy peasy. Will do in a bit. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please pass on this polite request?

Hi! See the bottom of [19] where Dean is acting as proxy for Bryan and trying to get in the middle of a debate VOR and I are setting up. I'd really rather he just left me alone, and I'd really, really rather he didn't proxy for Bryan, but I will not post on his User Talk page nor engage him on mine. Thanks. --BenBurch 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An early look

Since you had a hand in the Piotrus-Ghirla matter, would you like an early look at my draft proposal? User:Durova/Community enforced mediation Durova^Charge! 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't

Please do not post on my page again, everything I say is now misconstrued, or taken as a personal attack. So I won't comment on your message. Giano 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 401: / Line 401: @@
 :::::*No one's saying it's not somewhat rotten.  We simply don't keep articles away for good because it may be rotten is all.  Should be interesting. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 ::::::* In [[WP:BLP]] cases, we have done in the past and probably should more often.  Mind, as I think I may have made clear before, I have great contempt for those who have so little respect for simple human decency.  As far as I can tell (and there really ''are'' no decent sources I can find, on Factiva or anywhere else) the guy is disabled, has a congenital deformity, has intellectual impairment, lives in a nursing home.  Of that the only thing we can formally verify is that he lives in a nursing home, and that only through original research.  So I say: leave the poor bastard alone.  Actually it should probably be a link to the Manchester businessman Brian Pepper, who has at least been the subject of a few stories in major newspapers due to raids and seizure of property over alleged links with the IRA. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
+I fully support what Guy is saying here.  If the article is to survive recreation it must have better sourcing than previously.  If the motivation of the editors who want it is to gawk at someone who has a congenital deformity (and there appears to be no better reason than that), then the appropriate alternative is to write biographies of circus side show performers.  Those people chose to make a livelihood by putting their appearance on display; this man did not. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 == Cube World ==