Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:JzG

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paulo Fontaine (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 8 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Beware of the tigers!
This page may contain strong opinions. You have been warned.

Please read my archiving policy and my privacy policy. If you need urgent admin help you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply, or click this link to start a new conversation.

Sorry! Sorry! Derny

I think I screwed up on the Derny talk Page. I tried to archive by topic and I think I sent the discusion to the wrong page. --CyclePat 15:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Please, would it be possible for you to take a look at that? Thank you. --CyclePat 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but I really think a reference is superfluous in this instance. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the reference may not be as useful as within a larger article (whereas you may have several paragraphs of text before the reference), and that it may be in this instance, excessive. However, someone that wants to have easy access to the footnote or to "quote" may now do so easily because the footnote does precisely that; it leads directly to the text within the article. I find it useful. Whereas before you would have to search the article. Hence it may not be as entirely superfluous as it appears. --CyclePat 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: Thank you for double checking the derny talk page. I was a little confused on whether I did the archive properly or not. This is because at the top, when you go in the archive it says "discussion" and not the "article". I double checked the archive you did for my user talk page and it appears to be similar. Thank you again. --CyclePat 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the ref to a page on cycling records because I thought we needed one. The archive was unnnecessary, in my experience we only usually do that if the Talk page gets to the "bigger than preferred" warning limit. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jaulern

Good job on the block but I suspect we are now entering phase two of the Gastrich problem. This looks like a Gastich impersonator to me. This has occured on usnet too. David D. (Talk)

Maybe, I think it's probably WarriorScribe or someone having a dig. Cute, but not especially original. Anyway, let me know if you see any new outpourings from the good Doctor's sock drawer, won't you? The RfC looks to have come to a robust consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T'ain't me. I won't even have coffee with the guy...why would I pretend to be him? Nope...like I said, t'ain't me. Actually, given some of the structure of the comments, I suspect that it's "Bible John." - WarriorScribe 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's just a bit of fun, anyway, but I had to shelve my sense of humour and pick up the trusty Wikimop. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...and it's all good. - WarriorScribe 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You've inadvertently blocked me twice today, when intending to block Unisouth. This person must, like me, have an AOL dynamic address, so please observe the guidance for the AOL range when blocking that user, thanks, jimfbleak 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this? I have not blocked any IPs in the AOL ranges today that I know of. I'm sorry if I have, but I really don't think I did. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:SPAM

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

No problem. I have the rollback button for just such an eventuality :-) I noticed another instance of fisheaters spam at the same time so I killed two spammers with one stone. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primal diet

Just for your info, I added info on my web page to clarify what other contributions I made to wikipedia through the years.--Pietrosperoni 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed username recently, too, so I know what you mean. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your simpathy, but your comment in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Diet undermined my vote, just a moment before the votation was closed, thus not giving me the time to answer. Now, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and those disccussion try to look for a consensus, not for the rule of the majority. When this is not present the default decision is to keep. There were 3 people saying (in various forms) this is a real diet, a real fad, and it is verifiable from three sources: human experience, amazon and the net, and as such should have been kept. In that instance your comment probably did make the difference. Is there anything that can be done to correct this situation now?--Pietrosperoni 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can still leave a comment there if you want, it's not against any laws. Honestly. But your edit history under your previous name is also sketchy (I've got about 500 main space edits since January 5 when I changed my account, and some thousands under the old account - you have only ever edited a handful of articles). There is also a deletion appeal process at WP:DRV. But even if your statement were included in the final weighing-up there is still a consensus for deletion, by my reading of it, and it's unlikely that anythign would have changed in the short period from my comment to closure. Maybe if the tone of the article had been less "advertorial" it might have had an easier ride. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most users have edited only a handful of time. I am ready to bet that the number of edits per user follows a power law. Making people like you who have thousands of edits a rarity. There is a time threashold in the voting process, but no quantity threashold. And to clarify, I tend to edit only articles where I have a much better than average knowledge of the subject. But I do agree that that article was ill written. Should have been cleaned. Said that I obviously do not understand the concept of consensus. A fifth of the voters disagreed. They brought reasons on their side which were not denied, and you say there was consensus.
Most? Perhaps. Most involved in AfD discussions? Maybe not. Consensus in terms of deletion means at least 2:1 majority for deletion. And actually the debate can be held open indefinitely, it just shouldn't be less than 5 days (unless the result is blindingly obvious, i.e. speedy keep or speedy delete). You are free to have a go at writing a better article, if you do I recommend you work it up in your user space (at User:Pietrosperoni/Primal diet) rather than going straight in as it might be deleted as previously deleted content. Make sure you put a comment on the Talk page to say that it is not a re-creation but a complete re-write. This is called being bold :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good for the clarification on consensus. I'll look around if I can find an official statement as by now I am thinking about writing a blog entry. I am very grateful of the tip about how to rewrite the article. It was obvious that just retyping it in there would not work. I might look in the PD community if I can find people interested in lending me a hand. So that it is not the work of a single editor.--Pietrosperoni 12:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is always best when multiple editors work on something. You should also take trouble to ensure you cover any criticisms and problems, and maybe even look for some people to add a sceptical viewpoint. Wikipedia is about presenting the facts, not arguing for or against a given view (not that any of us are immune from pushing our point of view). Do you need the content of the deleted article copied to a user subpage? I can get to the deleted history for you if you like. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would help. Can I also say that you suggested me to try this way? There are also some other important info that have to be inserted, for example, I just discovered that the creator of PD was also the main character in the legal battle (won, btw) to bring back raw milk in California. The documents of that trial are available on the web.--Pietrosperoni 13:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done: it's at User:Pietrosperoni/Primal diet. Give me a shout before you move it back to main space, please. Also, please leave the header intact while you work it up, for the avoidance of doubt. You can cite court cases provided you can give a case number, there's an article on how to use references somewhere (probably at WP:CITE). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tommy

> A vote was entered in your name by an anon IP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature. If this was you, and a genuine edit, please come along and say so.

That was not me. Tommy 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikihalo Deputy Director Offer

Would you be interested in becoming a Deputy Director for the Wikihalo Project? The Neokid - Wikihalo Project Director talk 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it thought, thanks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The role of Deputy Director has now changed to Director (and the previous director to Controlling Officer). You are now invited to become a Director (Same thing, different name). The Neokid - Wikihalo Project Director talk 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD finishing

Could you clsoe out this AfD on Advanced Commando Combat System please? I saw you voted on it, there's clear consensus, and it's not going anywhere. Swatjester 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason it should not go the full five days? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Swatjester has removed some comments from IP addresses. Whether or not they're sockpuppets the comments ought to be restored and suitably annotated? --kingboyk 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cute vandalism has appeared at The Six Million Dollar Man. I thought I'd give you a nod and the honor of revverting it. --DanielCD 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear. What we need is "Windows for Grownups", an operating system that only operates connections to the outside world for those who have passed puberty by at least five years... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha You got to just love it. --DanielCD 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Ceccon

LOL I just did the AfD nom right after you using jnothman's script (I assume you are too) so it was effectively doubled. I undid mine... hehe. howcheng {chat} 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-D Two minds with but a single script ! Are you doing cat:CSD? If so I'll bugger off and do something else. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

Empire of Atlantium seems to be little more than an 'internet club', and I don't see that it meets WP:WEB. It has no territory and no basis at all on which to be considered a sovereign nation. I'd normally nominate such an article on sight. However, there has been a lot of "history" on this subject, and I feel I may be straying too far into a controversial area. (I've nominated Principality of Freedonia for deletion and have done some much needed merging of articles relating to Sealand and Dominion of Melchizedek). I don't have strong POV on these issues. Do you think Empire of Atlantium should be deleted? Should I just carry on doing what I think is best for wikipedia, as a non-involved editor, or should I leave well alone? --kingboyk 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if I know. I might AfD, because I find that AfD conentrates minds wonderfully and many articles are rescued from hopeless terribleness, but without hours of research I can't tell if this is real and significant or a massive ego-trip on the part of those involved. As far as I'm concerned individual micronations are almost never notable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you knew everything :P You disappoint me! --kingboyk 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP:WEB is at least partly applicable here. They have 35 posts on their forum, and 752 Google hits. I'll nominate it. --kingboyk 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. And I reckon all 35 members are editing this Wiki entry :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. "And I reckon all 35 members are editing this Wiki entry" - yep, so expect some fireworks :-( --kingboyk 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I suspect a few sockpuppets have shown up in the AFD votes, but there we go. I found two instances of people being informed on their talk pages of one of the AFDs without any internal wiki links. I didn't take it any further and don't intend to because it was on a small scale and isn't worth the fuss, and might have been an oversight rather than an attempt at disguising a vote stacking effort. What has a alarmed me a little is that one of those talk pages has had a batch of AFD links added in the http: form by the same experienced, vocally pro-micronation user. Why would anyone do that if I don't have something to hide?! Diffs: [1]; [2] (I messed up that one and didn't link to the AFD actually; this is where someone has come back and informed the user of the other AFDs, with - surprise surprise - http links).

As I said, it's only 2 cases so far so it's not worth making a fuss over. However, I think it would be prudent to be on the lookout for more since a few previous unknowns have shown up lately with rather unconvincing/generic 'keep' arguments. --kingboyk 01:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hutt River Province Principality

I'm assuming your listing of the above article for deletion is some sort of joke - or perhaps just the result of ignorance ? Hutt River and Prince Leonard are familiar to most Australians, have received an avalanche of media coverage globally over 4 decades and have an exhibit dedicated to them at the National Museum in Canberra. --Centauri 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I have Guy's page on watch, lest anybody start making accusations!) Hutt River Province Principality is notable as far as I concerned (not that anybody should take my word for it) and I've voted Keep. However, 'Prince Leonard' is only notable for his role in that saga and ought to be merged and/or deleted, I would argue. --kingboyk 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go as far as to suggest withdrawing that nomination, especially as I've now merged in Prince Leonard. --kingboyk 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, my bad. Fixed now. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you settle something small?

Hi, another editor thinks I've done something unethical and it might help if an admin put their concerns to rest. User:Wikicats posted the following to my talk page:

In your posting in Talk:Cat entitled "I'm restoring to my previous version.", it is signed Durova xx:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) but in Talk:Cat - History it says xx:27, 23 January 2006 Durova (→Conclusion). Can you explain this? --WikiCats 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I read Talk:Cat - History that post appears as 22 January. Durova 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Would you like me to get the people from Cat to look into this? I had hoped that you would have shown some degree regret for the mistake that you had made. --WikiCats 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked the page history and I still don't see this discrepancy (nor do I see why it would matter), but this person seems to be upset. Could you make sure everything is in order and communicate with them? Regards, Durova 07:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] seems to settle it? And who knew cats were so controversial? ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of that page it says Revision as of 08:27, 23 January 2006. On the posting it says: Durova 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

He said “I'm restoring to my previous version.” Then the encyclopedia was changed on the same day or the next day (at exactly the same time) without consensus or agreement as this was under discussion. This was the second time this has been done. I would like to work with this person but it makes it very hard when changes are made without agreement. --WikiCats 11:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history [4] shows that Durova did not edit the article on 23 Jan at all. At 22:29 on Jan 22 this edit [5] was made, which is I think the one referred to. That is within minutes of the Talk posting. Either I am being dense or someone is misreading edit histories.

My time zone is (+ 10). Thank you for your help and conformation that the changes were made to the encyclopedia within minutes of the Talk posting (without agreement or consensus). --WikiCats 04:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words in my mouth there. Durova stated that an edit was being made, and made the edit. There's nothign wrong with that (see WP:BOLD). My reading of Durova's edit was that it is perfectly reasonable, I saw nothing objectionable in it at all, but I have not gone back and read through the exchanges, having quite enough content disputes to play with right now. I see no evidence of dishonesty, though. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melodrama

User talk:Jason Gastrich. Reading between the lines it sounds like he is sending an army of sock and meat puppets to protect his hijacked pages. As well as that melodramatic outburst he is still thinking this wikipedia affair as being about atheists and unbelievers vs little innocent old him. The poor soul, it's tough being the only sane, loving person in the world. Sigh. David D. (Talk) 07:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So no change there, then :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, you might want to check the Kent Hovind page. As soon as the protection was removed, POV edits by anonymous IP users occurred again. - WarriorScribe 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have it on the radar. It's sporadic at present, which we can keep a lid on. I will reapply semi-protection if it escalates again, but there is pretty strong resistance to semi-protection for occasional vandalism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aspergers & fandom

That's nice, since I don't do either of those (collect Star Trek DVDs or try to speak "Klingon").

Look at the edit record again. In the edit for Trekkie of 05:01, 28 January 2006 YOU put in

Asperger's syndrome expert Dr. Tony Attwood has commented that obsessive fandom may also be a sign of Asperger's syndrome, suggesting as an illustration that conventions of Star Trek fans or railfans might be thought of as "reunions for people with Asperger's". Some have seen this as a form of "mass diagnosis".

All I added was the word "inappropriate", which I only did to make the point more clear. Do Administrator's privileges include the right to make false accusations?

Since I evidently will have to jump through hoops to keep the undisputed fact that he said what he said from continually being censored, what, for you, is an acceptable citation of people objecting to it? Who qualifies? How many people? Where?

Those last are honest questions, not sarcasm. I am crossposting this reply to your User Talk page only to make certain that you see it so I can get the answers, since it is not clear to me whether you are Watching my User Talk page or not.

Davidkevin 11:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you put the same paragraph in science fiction fandom in the edit of 05:07, 28 January 2006, not me. Again, please don't falsely accuse me.

I did edit your phrasing into the Asperger syndrome article, but only out of frustration after getting no reply to my request that you do something similar since you didn't like my attempts.

Davidkevin 12:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you are perfectly well aware, what I copied in was a reduction and restating of what you had originally written. I have no problem with properly cited references, but I am not alone in having some disquiet about this "some people say" stuff. Nor do I share your interpretation of the single, very short paragraph in a very long document. So that's why I ask for citations for your interpretation that this is a "mass diagnosis" rather than merely an illustration readily understood by a non-expert aufdience. Sorry I didn't reply within your preferred time frame, with upwards of 3,000 articles and Talk pages on my watch list, some heavily vandalised, I do not always spot things as quicly as I might. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you accused me of re-inserting that phrasing later on, when I hadn't done so. I don't appreciate being accused of vandalism when I didn't write the words you subsequently accuse me of writing. Again, look at the edit record.
Davidkevin 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit of Tony Attwood of 04:22, 28 January 2006, self-described as attempting to make it NPOV, you wrote:
== Asperger's and certain interests ==
Attwood notes a strong association between certain types of interests and Asperger's syndrome. In a talk in 2000 he illustrated what he describes as the "courtship" phase of Asperger's by reference to Star Trek conventions, calling them "reunions for people with Asperger's" - a classification he also extended to train spotters in the UK similarly characterised [6]. These statements have been repeated since.
Although clearly intended as illustrative of a class of readily-identified behaviours, these statements give to some the impression of being a mass diagnosis of thousands of people of having a pervasive developmental disorder merely because they are fans of a particular television program. Attwood is clear that it is focus on the interest itself over and above the people who share that interest which he considers as a marker; nonetheless, these remarks have proven unpopular with some "trekkers".
Do you still see what you yourself wrote as acceptable? If so, then why not just place it into the articles on Trekkie, science fiction fandom, and Asperger syndrome? It states my objection and yet minimizes it in a way which seems to fit your view of what Dr. Attwood said, leaving the reader to make her/his own determination.
Would that be acceptable consensus?
Davidkevin 12:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you reinserted, and what I see as inappropriate, is the assertion that this is an inappropriate mass diagnosis. But in reviewing the text as I NPOVd it, I noticed that I had included the assertion that it is a mass diagnosis when actually I see no real evidence of that, so I struck that out as well. And the reason not to include it in the two sub-articles is that it is discussed in more detail at Tony Attwood, which is linked, and to include that level of detail in these other articles is redundant and also gives it undue weight - in effect reinforcing the stereotype, when actually it should be minimised and placed in context. I have nothing against expanding the discussion of obsessive behaviours in certain communities within Aspergers, but it is clearly not restricted to the trekkie or fandom communities. It explicitly includes railfans and there are probably others too (I guess some historical re-enactment people and classic car buffs exhibit some of the same behaviours). It's not as if saying you are a trekkie will lead to your being disqualified from military service on the basis of this nebulous "diagnosis", because it is not actually a diagnosis as far as I can tell, just an illustration. If you can show that the fact of being a trekkie has ever led directly and without other tests to a dioagnosis of Aspergers that would indeed be an important piece of information. And incidentally, I am a sci-fi fan and a railfan: I do not feel in the least threatened by these passing comments and am at something of a loss so understand why others appear to find them such a massive problem. But then, I wouldn't care if someone did "accuse" me of having Aspergers. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, in California, in recent years, it seems that the mere allegation of any kind of mental illness, without testing or courtroom response, can be enough for an elderly person's assets to be placed into the conservatorship of strangers, according to a series of articles published recently in the Los Angeles Times, so I think that sensitivity to the issue of mischaracterization is justified. While Asperger syndrome was not specifically mentioned in the articles (which is why I didn't cite them), it is no leap at all to see it being used for that purpose -- and it is entirely possible in California courts that at some point, someone will use the Attwood statement as justification for taking the money of an eldery hobbyist. Yes, I know that's extreme to say, but California courts routinely swallow elephants while straining at gnats, so I truly do believe that, while it hasn't happened yet that I'm aware, the possibility does exist in the (possibly near) future.
Anyway, just for the record, I'm not the one who first put the mentions of Asperger's into the trekkie or science fiction fandom articles. I was just trying to deal with the text which was already there when I first read them. Truth be told, I never heard of the terms railfan or trainspotter (except for the movie Trainspotting, which I've never seen) before getting into this argument, but my objection to mischaractization of that hobby as a pervasive developmental disorder would be and is just as strong.
How about this: I have no problem with your text as mentioned above in the Tony Attwood article. I suggest copying it to the Asperger syndrome article, and deleting all mention of Asperger's in the trekkie and science fiction fandom articles for reason of Undue Weight.
That'll work for me. Will that work for you? Will that represent NPOV consensus?
Davidkevin 15:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems? Can? So is there any evidence that anyone has every been discriminated against as a result of being disgnosed as an Aspie simply because of being a trekker? It really doesn't seem so, does it? Anyway, you are not contending that it has ever happened, so let's forget it. I have no problem with removing it altogether from [[trekkie] and fandom, and I don't think that Attwood was characterising any of the hobbies described as being evidence of a "pervasive developmental disorder", I think he was saying that people with one specific disorder may display certain characteristic obsessive behaviours which may be observed in these groups, and that some of the more bizarre and inexplicable behaviours observed in members of such gorups might be explained if there were a higher-than-usual incidence fo Aspergers in those groups.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. What you suggest makes perfect sense to me. Will you do it or shall I? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead, if that's okay.
Davidkevin 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Davidkevin 16:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this type of deal at all. Some of the problems: (1) Undue weight is true but it applies to all four articles. This is not subject to admin decisions or consensus: personal opinions have no place in Wikipedia WP:NOR. 2) Even if original research were allowed, this deal would mean that editors only have to add the same "information" to three articles in order to create sufficient leverage to allow them to make a deal withdrawing two instances in order to retain and even amplify the third.

WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF. I resent the implication of manipulative behavior, and ask that it cease. I created no "leverage", I was honestly trying to find consensus.
Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(3) This can never be called a consensus since it has not been discussed on the talk pages of the articles.

JzG, is this correct? If so, we can have the same conversation we had above all over again on another page, but what will it accomplish? The work of compromise and consensus has been done, or so I had thought.
Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave things as they stand now but if I see no citations from reputable sources forthcoming in two weeks I will remove the relevant unsourced material from the Asperger Syndrome article.

A threat to start another edit war in two weeks unless she gets her way strikes me as a likely violation of WP:CIV as well.
Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also having second thoughts about my support for the compromise on the Tony Attwood page, since that too goes against WP:NOR.

One more thing: I totally disagree with the characterization of this conflict as a "garden variety edit war". This is about one editor (me) removing original research and another editor (Davidkevin, the author of the original research) reverting the removal, followed by discussion, mediation, RfC and support from five other editors for the removal.

The last is a flatly false statement. Her RfC on the Talk page for Tony Attwood (which I am still not sure was properly administered) got three comments. Evidently she is counting the mediator who withdrew before it as a fourth comment in her favor (as she indicated on that page), which I dispute, and I've no idea who the fifth might be, unless she's counting either you, JzG, or herself.
Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

OK, take me there then. I have no problem following consensus, my main point here was that complete removal frome trekkie and fandom was justified, the treatment on Attwood and Aspergers (if treated at all) is still subject to negotiation. I see no evidence that the supposed discrimination has ever happened, as above, and I have never said that agreement between two editors is consensus, only that the proposed edits address much of my problem. There is evidence it has been said, but it is a minor passing comment in a very long paper, and I quite see that the lack of any citation for anybody else interpreting it as DavidKavin does is a finadamental problem here. But I'll head on over to the Talk pages and we can pick it up there. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my interleaved comments above.
I thought this was settled. I have no interest in continuing a dispute after we had reached a resolution, and I don't like being threatened by AvB. She has not mentioned herself to be a science fiction or Star Trek fan, has no posted credentials with regard to Asperger Syndrome, and has only been a Wikipedian for two months. Her expertise on fandom, AS, or Wikipedia seem to me to be minimal at best. (I've only been contributing to Wikipedia for four months, but I'm not claiming expertise with it -- I realize I'm new at this. On the other hand, I've been part of active science fiction and Star Trek fandoms for 34 years, and have suffered from ADHD, and AS to a lesser extent, all my fifty years of life, although only properly diagnosed six years ago. I do claim expertise with them, and my observation of fandom indicates that while there are likely other ASpies scattered among them, the great majority are not similarly afflicted.)
I ask that she not interfere, or be allowed to interfere, with the consensus which you and I reached. I accept the {{citation needed}}" notations she has already attached in Tony Attwood and Asperger Syndrome. In the meantime, I will continue to search for citable written evidence to back up the fact which I already know from oral conversations, that there are other fans who regard Dr. Attwood's comments, as minor as they may seem to you, as comments about fans as a whole.
Fair enough? Acceptable under established Wikipedia policy? If not, please advise me. I am trying to reach consensus.
Davidkevin 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, two people is not "consensus", it's just a private agreement between us that I won't revert those edits. But AvB has made good points, and to be honest not being a trekkie is a much better qualification for writing neutrally on the issue than being one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point had to do with knowledge of the subject: she has no idea what fans are likely to think or believe, whereas I do. Ignorance is not synonymous with neutrality, and extensive knowledge is not synonymous with inability to be neutral.
I understand that I could have phrased some of my attempts to deal with this issue better, but that does not mean I am incapable of working out something neutral as Wikipedia defines it.
Do you have any comment at all on any of the other points I raised, including in the interleaving?
Davidkevin 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time has come to correct David on a number of points. See response posted here for privacy reasons. AvB ÷ talk 02:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: updated version available now. AvB ÷ talk 09:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with that. All I was doing was trying to stop a revert war; seems on fuller investigation that it was David v. rest-of-world, and having spent some time looking I concur that the remark is original research without verifiable reliable sources that I could find. I think you have been very patient with him. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that my edit is being held to a higher standard than other Wikipedia articles or edits. If Dr. Attwood had said the exact same thing, only about "Jews" or "Muslims" or "Christians" or "blacks" or "Asians" instead of "Star Trek fans", you wouldn't be making comments about original research. You'd know without even looking that there would be objections to what he said. The issue is not that he said it about fans, the issue is that he said it about a group of people without regard to their individuality.
More about this, and other replies (one point at a time) on AvB's private (?) page.
Davidkevin 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are being held to the documented policies of Wikipedia. The fact that many other articles also fall short is not a reason why this should. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, this is by no means the only article where I removed unsourced material (negative or positive). You should really see TDC, Dr U or Tearlach at work. My Tony Attwood revert was only different in that reverted editors do not usually dispute important WP:NPOV components like WP:NOR or WP:CITE, and that subsequent discussion, if any, does not usually escalate to mediation, article RfC, WP:NPA warnings and admin involvement. (If you want to do dispute these policies etc, please go to the respective project pages and discuss your viewpoints there. Feel free to use the Attwood article as an example). AvB ÷ talk 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AvB, you keep posting as if all these warnings you cite, the RfC, and dragging an Admin into it were some kind of objective proof that I'm a Bad Person. They're not. They're all subjective, they all come from you. They are in no way evidence in and of themselves of my supposed perfidy.
This is what I was talking about when I said you misuse Wikipedia procedures.
Davidkevin 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's rubbish. I've read AvB's comments very carefully, it is very evident that he is not making you out to be a bad person, only stating that you are pushing a POV which lacks a verifiable evidential basis, and that other processes have come to the same concusion. Sometimes when a lot of people tell you that you are wrong, it is because you are wrong, however strongly you may believe otherwise. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<Personal mode> David, I do not even THINK you are a bad person. I am not in the habit of extending olive branches to people I perceive as perfidious. And, FWIW, I'm not trying to make you look bad either. For one thing I'm pretty much useless as a Flame Warrior, I just don't have (and don't desire) the talent. Also, this isn't usenet - even if I were able to make you look bad, it would be pretty useless to do on someone else's talk page, let alone my zandbak1 page which cannot easily be found by trolls or other pathetic people in desperate need of fruitless conflict to feed on. This is Wikipedia; no one's really watching us. Basically it's just you, Jzg and me here. Lighten up. I may be interested in what you're going to DO, but I'm not interested in what you have done. I see you're already experimenting with the {{citations needed}} tag. That's good. I have learnt a lot from our encounter so far; I hope you can say the same. Then it hasn't all been a total waste of time. </Personal mode> AvB ÷ talk 14:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heady

or headly or whatever. I saw on his talk you blocked him at 12:27 UTC. I then saw he had a talk page edit responce he made at 15:00 UTC appx. How can this be? Swatjester 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robert Morey and LBU

Robert Morey was deleted a while back (in the mist of the LBU AfDs) and now someone wrote a new page. Isn't this against Wikipedia rules? Arbustoo 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, user blocked, notice left at WP:AN. Thanks for the heads-up. By a strange coincidence the new biog did not include any of the controversy details from the old one - who would have thoguht it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that was Jason though. Since you are able to speedy things, check out the nomination for Prays and Forty-nine character virtues. Arbustoo 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser

Hello Guy. I would like to give the above software a test spin, but to use it one must be registered at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. "By default all admins are allowed, and any user can be added by an admin." I wondered if you would mind adding me please? I was going to ask at the Admins Noticeboard but I figured it better to ask somebody who has dealt with me. Thanks. --kingboyk 09:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to, if you tell me exactly what I need to do (does just adding your name automagically register you?) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, his username just needs to be added under 'Approved Users' :) —bbatsell ¿? 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and list alphasorted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guy, much appreciated. I'll let you know how it goes. --kingboyk 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JzG, would you consider adding me as well? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actively so. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast, thanks mate! ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more please JzG.....=)Mike (T C) 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I looked at this a while ago, but just didn't think about it again! Mike (T C) 02:38, 6 February
Whoops, seems I may have started a bandwagon. Sorry about that. --kingboyk 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I don't mind helping people I know, I just don't want to be seen as a back door past thge usual process. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

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

This: [7] and this: [8]. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Here's a thing...

Yes, I've been following that article. It helped shape my opinion of you, for one thing. If I can help, I will. But it's a difficult situation. I have actually started to type a talk page response on several occasions, only to realize how futile the attempt to help find some middle ground would be, simply because everyone has become so entrenched and distrusting (not without reason, I should add). As to me, most (but not all) of the more radical patients/patient reps view me as in bed with the prof as it is (the "professor-lover" allegation is not quite new to me). I am not, but I can see where he is coming from. Some mainstream leaders actually see me as a radical. I am not a radical either, but I can see where they are coming from. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle. However, the middle is not in view from the outside. The prof is a very influential person, his work dominates the literature and he's often asked by newspapers when they need the scientific angle. Patients are not (usually) published in peer-reviewed medical journals - the real world SPOV version of NPOV keeps their side of the story out of the journals read by GPs, specialists, etc. This also greatly diminishes the chances to reach the newspapers. Wikipedia, as a reflection of the real world, accurately presents the medical view prevalent among GPs, consultants, etc. - in short, it documents the situation as experienced by most patients. Including the fact that many patients (and some doctors and researchers) want the situation to change. What is not visible from the outside is the - as yet unsourced - information that a rising number of previously mainstream patient orgs are slowly giving up on mainstream medicine, the somewhat sourcable information that the diagnostic criteria are causing problems and need to be refined and subgrouped before long, and (it's true) the degree to which research into medical (as opposed to mental) etiology is throwing light on the syndrome. The painful truth is that Wikipedia can hardly allow more opposition info in this article than it already has. Unless editors find e.g. some really good references or iron-clad reports on the views of notable people like Lady Mar (i.e. the Countess of Mar, she's also a patient advocate and member of the House of Lords), Prof. Malcolm Hooper, and possibly patient org leader Jane Colby. If you think it might be helpful, I can try and write up a synopsis of the main factors feeding this conflict. (The full picture, even if only from my viewpoint, would need one or two books I'm afraid). I have access to the Prins et al. Lancet review, not sure why (I'm registered at their site but don't pay them anything). Perhaps you can access it yourself after registering (it's free) - see the pdf. Or would it help if I let you sneak a peek? OK hafta run (metaphorically speaking). Later. AvB ÷ talk 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting report, and extensively referenced (it will take me an age to follow them all up!). Of course, as you say, this will suffer from selection bias, in that few dissenting opinions get published (I'm used to that in bicycle helmet research) but it does look as if the issue is being misrepresented by some, since the report emphatically does not state that it is a psychiatric or psychological disporder, only that refusal to accept this possibility appears to be associated with perpetuation of the symptoms. The other side state that there is critique of this paper, but I can't find that at present. Ah well, in the end Wikipedia exists to document the verifiable, and regardless of whether or not you accept Wessely's ideas there is little doubt that he is (a) widely respected and (b) actively looking for markers, cures and palliatives. I don't see how a point of view distorted by obdurate refusal to accept anything byut a physical cause can inform this article any more than it already does. The controversy belongs at chronic fatigue syndrome - which name is of course taken by some as POV in itself. A real no-win situation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with that. FWIW, I felt really lame over letting you down so I just gave a little speech on the SW talk page (& hope the praise will offset my WP:BITE criticism). Let's see where it goes. I know so many of these people, and the things they have gone through. I can vouch for the moral fiber of most of them. But some will bite my head off nevertheless. I can take it from them. CFS/ME is an angry world - and not always without reason. AvB ÷ talk 13:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel let down, and I certainly don't think your comments were out of place. I am keen on following WP:BITE (I userfy rather than speedying trivial autobiographies, for example, and subst template:nn-userfy which I made for the purpose. It's hard to tell a newbie from a returner when they are all anonymous, and when all the posted links seem to come from One Click, for whom I readily concede very considerable personal antipathy following their behaviour late last year. Savagely attacking the janitor is a very poor substitute for taking the trouble to read the posted links to policy. But that's all in the past (for me if not for them). Perhaps the time has come for me to unwatch that article and leave it to others, although recent experience indicates that it still needs to be actively watched by a reasonable number of poeople. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Here's a PS: Critiques (1) posted here and possibly at Co-Cure Search for: The subject is or contains: Lancet. AvB ÷ talk 13:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why the problem persists: the best-referenced comment can still only cite references for the problem, not for any proposed solution. Medical journals are always going to discuss patents' symptoms clinically (that is rather the point) and criticising them for that equates to "forget science, think of the children". There must be sceptical science, surely? Where does it get published? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

83.151.251.195

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_lighting&diff=38483202&oldid=38187968 . Given your note on the talk page, I thought you'd like to know. --Christopherlin 17:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. The spammer is also active on Usenet, at a low level: [9]. I trawled through his postings once and found simulatneous threads asking for keygens for AutoCAD and help with registering a patent - a somewhat bipolar view of the importance of intellectual property! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! --kingboyk 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police state

Thank you for helping out. Could you revert the last edit? I do not want to violate the 3 RR rule, so maybe you can make the edit? Sincerely --Holland Nomen Nescio 10:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

What would Jimbo do?

Based on advice on this page, I have nominated it for deletion. Please visit Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What would Jimbo do? for a discussion. --Rob 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Guy, have to vote delete on this one. Reason's on the MfD, but I'll add that after the Jason Gastrich fiasco, you should be aware of the problems with the doctrine of Jimblical inerrancy :-) --Malthusian (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I don't take it personally. It's actually the opposite of the point I was trying to make, though - but then, as a Christian I am familiar with WWJD so I know it means an appeal to guiding principles, not to authority. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest plenty of other people would claim as Christians they are familiar with what the sayings means, and have a different meaning than yours (but would be equally certain their meaning is *the* meaning). Many use the saying on the premise that Jesus is perfect, and incapable of sin (so people should follow him as a perfect example). Therefore, putting Jimbo in place of Jesus in the saying, has a rather obvious implication (e.g. whatever Jimbo says/does is perfect, and aught to be copied). Rather, than the debating the meaning of religiously charged words, how about just withdrawing the whole thing, and if you want, you can always make another page to say what you meant, without any religious reference. --Rob 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want three different interpretations of anythign, ask two Christians :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

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

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

My Additions

I can understand your deletion of obviously false articles, but what is the point of deleting additions i have made to articles which are worthy & labelling them 'vandalism'? Surely it is your deletion of these additions that constitutes vandalism? (Paulo Fontaine 10:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_8&oldid=38749584"