Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Beware of the tigers!
This page may contain strong opinions. You have been warned.
Please read my archiving policy and my privacy policy, also I would greatly appreciate it if you could add new comments to running issues into the relevant section (e.g. Jason Gastrich). Thanks.
For which I am grateful, I do take an interest in Christianity on WP, but consider myself so far short of an authority on anything of substance that I usually confine myself to trying to fix edit wars and other nonsense. Oh, wait - I have contributed to some articles on traditional British hymns such as Adeste Fideles and Cwm Rhondda, so maybe I might be of some use :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
User:CyclePat and I have a bit of a chequered past, but he supported my RfA after initially opposing, and bought me a beer on the strength of it, which was big of him, so I've kept it here to show that sometimes when folks work at it they can get along :-) Pat, for the record, I am actually very toucched by this, it means a lot to me. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's Very Important Brew (W-VIB). I CyclePat award JzG with these Working Man's Beers, (which have images of Barnstar's at the bottom & are made of 100% recycled electrons.) Congratulations on your overwhelming votes on Rfa. Cheers. feel free to drink and wikify!
Adminship
Congratulations
Hi, JzG/Archive 8, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop
Hey there. Congratulations, you've just been made a sysop! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except junk like "aojt9085yu8;3ou BOB IS GAY"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Misplaced Pages up to date.
Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun!
Congrats! You got many more votes than I did, and I thought I did pretty well. I don't know how you managed to avoid the "Oppose deletionist trolls!" votes that always seem to appear. But its always nice to read someone's subpage and think "I could almost have written that" (with some changes). But good luck with your new powers, and I do hope you'll keep an eye on this page, though it is tiresome; it's worn me out many times. -R. fiend03:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to nominate you some time ago and I totally missed your RfA, probably because you changed your username. Ha. Anyway, congratulations on the new mop and bucket! howcheng {chat} 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you all. "Once a month on a Friday there's a man / with a mop and bucket in his hand / he whistles as he rubs and scrubs away / to him it's just another working day" - The Equestrian Statue, Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band. (rummage) - there, it's on iTunes now :-) Now, if anyone can help me with the business of a template and maybe even a script for those hundred thank-you notes... Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi JzG - glad to see you got promoted! As I mentioned at the ANI talk I'd be happy to help you out. The first thing new administrators usually try out is clearing the CSDs, that is deleting the obvious speedy candidates. As for A7s etc. I'd try to be either especially conservitive starting out though - for the ones that are not tagged properly either go the afd route (nearly all the tagged speedies are candidates for afd in one way or another) or in other cases just remove the tag with an appropriate edit summary. I can have a look over them if you'd like when you're done :). WhiteNight11:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Good calls - Soundcircuit does not assert notability and some admins I know would probably speedy it under the "group" clause of A7, but for now that is highly contriversial when applied to websites etc.. Superstreng is a good call as well as Soopermuse, although in the latter (Soopermus) when an article is not wikified much about 60% of the time it is a copyvio so I'd do a quick google, and if you are able to find what it is a copyvio from delete it with a message as something like "A8 - ". (if it is in the last 48 hours of course, see the A8 criteria for more info) WhiteNight11:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right - that's always the problem. Basically as an admin what you want to try to do is, as you mention, exhaust all CSD criteria options before sending to AFD in order to avoid a moot conversation over the subject :). I wouldn't worry too much about deleting a new page due to WP:BITE - just explain the situation if you get a complaint, maybe userfying it if neccesary, and as mentioned trying to be cautious of the wording of your afds :). WhiteNight11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Once you are done and/or feel you have a grip on speedy candidates the next thing you might want to try is newpage patrol (a.k.a. looking and every new page and deleting/afding/tagging them with "cleanup"/"not verified"/"pov" etc. tags - Special:Newpages) - in essense it is basically the same thing as CAT:CSD, but a bit more intense and faster-paced. Feel free to leave me a message if you have questions :). WhiteNight11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Vandal Flagged
The vandal did edit after my last warning. If you check his contributions and his Talkpage you can see that I gave him a level 3 warning message for his vandalism in article Leet, afterwards I gave him a level 4 warning message for his vandalism in article BR. Then (if you look at his contribs) you can see that he vandalized the article Newbie. Then I proceeded to report him.
I realize that this is an IP address shared by multiple users but efforts to contact Epping Forest College must be made.
Thanks for listening. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 13:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Warning was 12:43, last edit at 12:39. I did block but unblocked again when another admin pointed this out, hence the message to you. For the record I'd have been happy to block earlier given past history, but I'm new at this game :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?13:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It's in BlueYonder's dynamic block, as far as I know at present, so I can only really block for an hour or so at a time unless the problem escalates - let me know (by email if you want) if it happens again; I will treat that or any new address in the same block with the same behaviour as the same account and block with no firther warning, I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
RE: block
Sure - that's ok. If you are going to use templates though I'd make sure you are using the one that partains to that situation (i.e. you used the vandalism one for the linkspam) and I'd also be sure to mention the length of the block too WhiteNight20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I’m quite disturbed by your deletion of of the Paul Jaworski. The original article was a one line about a Paul Jaworski born 1989 and no other info. It was speedy deleted and quite rightly. However, the article was recreated and about a notable figure who participated in the First armoured car robbery and was given the eletcric chair as documented here: The Great Detroit News Payroll Robbery and can be found in several books including this one: The Violent Years: Prohibition and the Detroit Mobs. I find it hard to believe that you have knowing deleted this subject based on the basis that a separate and unrelated article going by the same name was deleted, thus I believe that you’ve made an unintentional mistake. Englishrose16:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You could well be right, although what I dleted was substantially identical to what Stifle deleted an hour or so earlier. I'm undeleting now, will send back to AfD for a proper debate. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for your speedy action, I'm as confused as anyone how everything occured but at least the factual article looks like it will be saved. Thanks. Englishrose22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the deletion page. Everyone seems to be in accord that there is no reason to delete the article. The article is obviously not about me. I was not alive in 1927.
Paulwithap20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Congrats, and also for getting more than 100 votes. If only I was nominated during the holiday season, though it may have helped on the "Oppose" side for me. ;-) Ah, well. Wield your mop with pride! --Deathphoenix12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations. I'm glad to see you've nailed the mass thank you card thing. Now I know the very person to ask without feeling too dumb (if / when my time comes). ;) Regards. PJM12:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. I must say I had been led to believe that being granted adminship was no big deal - but they seem to have put you through the seven circles (or should that be cycles?) of hell to get there, and you made it. Good work. ElectricRay14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So, you St. Albans is older, has more illustrious graduates, and is more prestigious; huzzah. My feeling is that the American St. Albans has the unqualified name because it has been around on Misplaced Pages for much longer - almost a year. Also, Misplaced Pages stared as a primarily American project, so it makes a little sense that it would go first. So I guess I'm saying in a complicated and sarcastic way that I support the move, with a disambiguation page. After all, both schools have a good relationship and participate in an exchange.
The problem with that is that the other school also does not usually use the period (it is not the school of St. Alban, it is the school in St Albans -note no period), and in any case the use or otherwise is somewhat arbitrary. A dab page is safer, I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna take this public on the Talk: St. Albans School page so other people interested in the subject can comment. Sound good? I think that a dab is better, but the English public school should retitled as "St Albans School", even if we keep the "(Hertfordshire)" after that.
I'm reverting to your stub, by the way, which is what I should have done in the first place - well done, that was exactly right and it was my mistake going back to the wrong version. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That looks the best move. I'm busy this week, but I have access to the NewsBank newspaper archive and can try to get a more balanced picture. Re the "baddie" version: the individual items about litigation history and failed companies do check out, but the overall feel is still of bias by selection of negative material. As you say, litigation and having business ventures fail is par for the course on the newspaper publishing circuit, so I don't think he's as unique in that respect as painted. TR's version, OTOH, is certainly a whitewash for failing to mention that aspect at all. Tearlach09:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree on both counts. Private companies are voluntarily wound up all the time, there is no indication that half of those closures are anything else, and I have a degree of sympathy for anyone who's had to pay £8,500 damages but many times that in legal fees to Carter-Fuck and Partners. He is probably just a wide-boy, not a crook ;-)
Which reminds me of another bit of subtle bias, the repeated use of "prosecuted", which is definitely a slur intended to foster the auru of criminality. Libel suits come under civil law, where the term isn't used. Tearlach10:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
True enough. I've been keeping an eye, the POV pushers seem to be in abeyance at present, but I am ready to semi-protect or protect if necessary. Feel free to add a {disputed} tag if you want. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?10:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There are rather a lot of slurs by association in the article as originally written, too. I'm not surprised the guy was a bit angry. --kingboyk13:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's OK at present, I'm working with others to keep an eye on it. I did consider semi-protecting it but the anons are not doing anyhting at present. It may prove necessary, though. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
Mr. Gastrich
You're absolutely right. He's made it clear in the past that he view the project as a means to promote his particular pov rather than being here to contribute to the project in a meaningful way. I've found that he bears constant watching for POV, NPA, and most recently, skewing votes. What to do? Generally, keep an eye on the situation, work together, and insist he follows all policies, all the time. Specifically, discussion of votes from any coordinated voting by a cadre he assembles should be moved to the particular AFD's talk page for discussion by others outside that cadre as to the appropriateness of organizing a voting block specifically to skew AFDs. Remember, AFD is supposed to represent the community's viewpoint, not any particular subset of it. FeloniousMonk18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, it will be just like the school debate but a magnitude worse. The deluge of minor preachers and self professed ministers has begun. David D.(Talk)22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to nip it in the bud. I propose raising an RfC; this tips the balance for me. Gastrich has been disruptive ever since he first used the alleged sock account big lover (talk·contribs) to create the article which now forms his user page. WP:ISNOT a soapbox but the existence of suggests that he disagrees. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, JzG, you're fighting the good fight here, but these articles just seem to keep coming. I'm concerned that there's a fundamental, irreconcilable difference of what counts as notable, and I note that a lot of the keep votes are from people that identify as evangelicals and Catholic Alliance types on their user pages here. In other words, one sides sees the dispute as about encyclopedicity, but the other sees it as about an attack on their faith. I just can't see a happy resolution here, at least not by talking about this piecemeal, article by article. I support the RfC option but I'm pessimistic. rodii00:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think it's beyonfd a joke. I'm AfDing things because I was looking for an objective review per my thoughts at user:JzG/AfD; that is not what is happening. I do not usually vote on articles I nominate, I feel myself being sucked in to advocating an outcome which is not what I want. What I want is for barrow-pushers like Gastrich to pay their own hosting charges and hot use the 'pedia to push their neo-pharisee POV. As you say, it ain't going to happen. So yes an RFC is probably the best solution. There's plenty of evidence of others trying to tackle Gastrich on his m:MPOV issues. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Something needs to be done. He's disrupting Misplaced Pages for his own agenda. I had the misfortune to run into him on talk.origins. Ugh. And now he's here. His outright use of meatpuppets to swing the vote was disgusting and I can't believe he's getting away with it. It's so obvious he's abusing process. I pointed this out to an admin but he wanted to see evidence on the exterior site (JCSM) that shows he was soliciting votes. Well guess what, Gastrich already scrubbed that from his webpage. He probably realized how bad it made him look. But he already had the desired effect ... he got a bunch of people to come into the AfDs and vote delete. I definitely suggest an RfC and I will be more than happy to comment in it. You guys start preparing the diff lists of all of the various times he's found like-minded users through userboxes or whatever and "politely suggested" that they vote keep in this AfD.
I think this should be raised on RFC. It's too late for me to write the citation now but I will let you know shortly that I have done so in order that you can certify the basis for the dispute if desired. Stifle00:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If you decide to write a RFC, count me in on it. His behavior was outrageous, and what's worse, he showed no remorse or inclination to change when I asked him about it on his talk page. If it's not addressed, I'm 100% convinced that it'll keep happening. -Colin Kimbrell04:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Threat? I suppose so; I have no problem being watched (unlike Gastrich I don't use sockpuppets). But the claim is absurd - I am a Christian, a member of the church council (actually the inner circle, the Standing Committee), I am a foundation governor at the church school, crucifer, chalice administrator, chorister and so on. The claim that I am anti-Christian is uttely ludicrous! Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?10:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you're an atheist pretending to be a Christian because you hate Jesus and are trying to destroy Christianity! You Are Being Watched!!!! And being watched by Gastrich can mean... being... erm... you know... watched. I mean, he'll look at you. Scary huh? Mark K. Bilbo14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
To Jason, anyone that disagrees with his narrow interpretation of Chritianity is an unbeliever. Strangely he is willing to use Christians, whom he would normally disagree with theologically, in a forced coallition if it suits his needs (AfD). But the're still going to hell. I suspect that many in his own Church congregation would go against him if they saw his actions. Also remember that 'once saved always saved' is Jason's motto. Thus, he is ALLOWED to be unchristian to get his own way. It is for this reason that he seems so hypocritical and twists every letter of law to suit his own agaenda rather than interpreting the spirit of the law. You will find he commonly says i have done nothing wrong. He really believes it too. The most recent case of this is the meatmeat puppets and vote rigging. David D.(Talk)16:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You should check some of Mr. Gastrich's AFD nominations, if you haven't looked in on them lately. It appears that when confronted about soliciting votes by spamming talk pages, he started soliciting votes instead by sending mass e-mails to users with "Christian" and "Inclusionist" userboxes. What do you think is the right approach to take on this? I'm not as familiar with policy guidelines as I probably should be, but I'm sure what he did isn't kosher. -Colin Kimbrell05:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
AfDs
Is there anything I should know about that led up to these borderline notable Christian AfDs? It seemed to me that Robert Morey was pretty notable from what I could ascertain. My point of reference is Ali Sina whose article has been kept multiple times and has probably made me more of an inclusionist. The others I have read I'm not sure about but Morey seemed pretty notable with references to him by Jack Chick and such. They all seem like they might be more notable than Ali Sina. Hmm. grenグレン02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Charles Pack entry
Why did you delete the external link to free prophecy videos featuring Charles Pack? Please mark your edits in the box that says "Edit summary." --Jason Gastrich10:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The more I have seen of these diploma mills on Misplaced Pages (and read up on them when rewriting articles), the more convinced I have become that we should cover them. We should perhaps not have an individual article on each one, as many of the "virtual mills" are just online fronts for the same businesses, but we should try to cover the main players in the business (there is an international operation called University Degree Programs, or something like that, that stands behind a couple of dozen of them alone), their phony accreditation agencies and all that. They generate a lot of spam both through e-mail and on the web and Misplaced Pages can do some public good by providing NPOV information. In some form, diploma mills have been around for a long time. Somebody with access to the OED could check when the word "diploma mill" is first used, but I think it is quite old (about 1900 or even earlier) - a History of diploma mills could probably be rather entertaining. :) Tupsharru12:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting and valid subject, for sure. I wonder how the Gastriches of this world would react to such an article? There is one way to find out, of course... - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?12:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
1923Congress. Rec. 12 Dec. 241/2 If the United States mails have been used by self-styled medical institutions and organizations known popularly as ‘diploma mills’ for purposes of fraud in connection with the sale of degrees or diplomas. 1936Jrnl. Higher Educ. 7 157 A ‘diploma mill’ in Ohio was deprived of its charter in 1900, when investigation..disclosed that the president had sold M.A. degrees for $25 each.
In reference to my full rebuttal to "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible," you said, "It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it." Can you support this? As far as I've seen, one man and a couple of his friends have attacked me and my book (yes, both, which makes their input highly suspect). There are far more positive responses (indicated by 4 out of 5 stars) than negative ones. So, you've got some "splainin" to do. --Jason Gastrich20:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, very Christian of you, Jason: "For all that is in the world ... the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." In any case, 2 of the reviews need to be tossed as they are by the same two people (thus we have 26 reviewers). If we ditch the anonymous (a statistically valid practice) we have 21 reviews. Total points awarded by those 21 reviewers equal 71, or 3.4 out of 5. In addition, it's rather hard to take as an unbiased review someone who is clearly a devotee of Gastrich. if we ditch those people as biased the book gets a 1.5 out of 5. A true review might be one found in the NYT (not that they bothered, it didn't meet their standards). Jim62sch00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I support "It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it"? Absolutely. Especially in the context of ending an edit war.
You are adding links to your own work. That is usually considered vanity or spam - actually, not just adding, edit warring to add a link to a site you own. I have some experience of these disputes; the only examples I can call to mind of site owners edit warring to reinsert their own sites have been linkspam.
The link was originally added by another editor. See the history if you don't think so. There are plenty of people who would like to see the link there. --Jason Gastrich05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As stated on the Talk page, neither of the sources you are edit warring about appear to be reliable sources per usual guidelines, and Amazon reviews are absolutely notreliable - not only are they subject to inclusion bias (few people buy religious books unless they already agree with their conclusions), reviews are not rtraceable back to an identifiable source - authors and PRs have been known to use sockpuppets to puff their own books. I see no pressure from other established editors on that article for inclusion, and the usual approach in these cases is for the established editors on an article to agree what goes in and what goes out.
In any case, who originally added the link is immaterial: it is being repeatedly reinserted by Gastrich and a suspected sockpuppet; also there is sufficient evidence of meatpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich) to make the true independence of other editors without a long edit history on the article open to question. The fact of the matter is that the edit war has Gastrich or a suspected sock reinserting links to a book by Gastrich for which no verifiable evidence of authority has been provided. Absent consensus on the Talk page, normal practice is not to include links in these circumstances. Not in any way controversial. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?11:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
First, I disagree with you that Amazon.com book reviews are meaningless and often inflated. Furthermore, this still doesn't further your claim. When are you going to support what you said? You made a positive claim about a "sufficient dispute about the authority" of my work. Well, where is it? --Jason Gastrich05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree all you like, it is a widely accepted fact that Amazon reviews are not authoritative. And what I said was It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it. I don't think this is in any way controversial. I note that you forgot to mention that the Amazon reviews include several one-star reviews with well-reasoned and hard to ignore comments such as I enjoy reading christian apologetics and works of comparative religion and I was loaned a copy of this electronic, CD-based book to see what I thought of it. I am afraid that my critical views align with some of the others on the Amazon site. This is a poor effort at apologetics, the intellectual value is on a par with an albeit lengthy pre-secondary school report. There is always some risk when presuming to take a list of errors while presuming to correct them. One of those risks is that errors are not always errors. Another risk is that the errors are legitimate but those things presumed to be "answers," "corrections" or "explanations" fall well short of the mark by either failing to provide a reasonable, intelligent explanation or by misdirecting from the subject of the supposed error. These things occur frequently in this volume.; this suggests that a degree of scepticism regarding the authority of the source is not unreasonable. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?11:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Right. Well, all of this post, JzG, is fluff talk to masquerade your opinion that the link shouldn't be on there. This is simply my judgment based on your running from the question I asked. --Jason Gastrich05:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Question: is your opinion as author more opr less likely to be neutral than my opinion as an admin trying to stop an edit war? Past experience suggests less neutral. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?11:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Given Gastrich's history of vote manipulation here, I wouldn't put too much stock in his touting his book getting 4 out of 5 stars at Amazon. Amazon reviews are notoriously easy to skew with shills, that needs to weighed against his behavior here. FeloniousMonk23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Reading above it seems that jason is trying to convince everyone that he has great reviews at Amazon. The truth is that jason got Amazon to remove many of the negative reviews. Of those that remain, the most objective reviews are apparently the most scathing. If you are interested in more background on the reviews at amazon read the following usenet thread. David D.(Talk)06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention, the facts are that Amazon reviews simply aren't reliable, verifiable sources for anything at all. Anybody can write a Amazon "review." They are nothing but reader opinion. Which can be helpful in finding a book you may like but what authority could they possibly have? "I like this book" is hardly a scholarly opinion.
Also, I have to say that seeing the author of a work allege that others are not being objective is rather amusing. If anybody has a bias about a work, it's the author. You just can't help that. The author is always bias about his work. Mark K. Bilbo18:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought your summary was bullet-proof. I'm unfamiliar with the RFC process - should I stick my name under "Other users who endorse this summary"? I probably don't count as having tried and failed to resolve the dispute - I did hope this comment might have given him pause for thought, but he deleted it soon after , so probably not. --Malthusian(talk)14:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jzg. I am about to close some of the "Gastrich" Afds and I want to hear your opinion on how I could close them since all the Afds have been disrupted somehow. --a.n.o.n.y.m16:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope you've got a thick skin mate, I wouldn't fancy that job! --kingboyk16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (Sorry for butting in, I've got Guy's page on my watchlist)
Close them by noting that a "get out the vote campaign" using spam disrupted the voting process. It's not goibg to sit well with Gastrich (he seems to not like the truth), but too bad. Jim62sch16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually it should probably wait until his RFC is over. The Afds are getting real crazy though. I am following the Rfc to see which ones are sockpuppets. And spamming users is horrible and it really messed up the process, but still legal for some reason. :p --a.n.o.n.y.m17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Rather you than me, mate! I don't know, I really don't. I might be tempted to strike any vote from a user who has no previous AfD votes and no history on the articles themselves, whether they are keep or delete, but even that is going to be contentious. My betting is that whatever the results they will largely end up at DRV anyway. I suggest we look at them together, using thr Talk pages, and ask User:FeloniousMonk along too; if we make a list of the various users using the {{user}} template, review other contribs and so on, include the actual substantive arguments for and against, and see if anything comes out in the wash. In the mean time I would close them "pending review" or some such, so as not to have any more added wile we work it out. I'm not especially neutral so I'll leave the call to you but I don't mind helping in the grunt work. You might want to make a temporary user page to list them on? - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?17:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Popped by to commend you on your handling of the Gastrich affair and saw this so I thought I would comment: Most of the articles in question would have been deleted under normal circumstances, and vote soliciting is a major sin on WP. I think the closing admin could delete most of them and trust in the good faith of the community to stand by his/her actions. The same cannot be said of the invading puppets. ps. per below, House of Cards was shown years ago on PBS; and no, one couldn't possibly comment ;) Anyway, congrats on your adminship and keep up the good work. Eusebeus23:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I have already closed a few as delete and a couple as keep. And about keeping up with contribs, see the keep Afd's and if any of the votes there are by sockpuppets or editors I can discount. Just check the list below for the ones that I kept. --a.n.o.n.y.m18:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
"You Might Say That, I Couldn't Possibly Comment"
Unfortunately, House of Cards has yet to make it across the pond, at least I've not seen it listed on BBCAmerica or PBS. Jim62sch16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, never read that one...in fact the only Waugh I have is "A Handful of Dust". But, one point (the humour of the quote aside), you kind of ended up agreeing with me, thus confusing the hell out of me at 5:30AM. :) Jim62sch10:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Your vandalism
Hello, JzG. You need to revert your vandalism on the following pages. Posting a link to an RfC that you created, on the very top of every nomination for deletion page, was grossly inappropriate. The notice about the alleged sockpuppet was also very inappropriate.
The things that you have done indicate that you care little about Misplaced Pages and the nomination for deletion process. If you did care about these things, you wouldn't have tried to skew the voting like you did.
Now, as an admin, I fully believe that there may have been a day when you cared about Misplaced Pages. If you cannot understand my exhortation, it is my prayer that someone else can help you understand the error of your ways.
In the meantime, I'll be pursuing several avenues of Wikipedian recourse through its processes to repair the great damage you have done. It would be very wise to revert your vandalism on the following pages:
Not vandalism. It's a good-faith attempt to solicit input from the Misplaced Pages community and discuss the issues raised in these AfDs in one central place. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." (WP:VAND) All of these AfDs should have been about straightforward questions of notability, per the nominations and WP:BIO, but they were allowed to spiral out into some crazy "war on Christianity" discussion, principally through the efforts of Mr. Gastrich and his sockpuppets on one hand, and some needlessly provocative comments by a few of the people voting to delete. This has now become an issue for the community, as opposed to a factual discussion about a few debatable articles. If anything constructive is going to come out of this it has to start with RfC, and notifying all the participants in the discussion that an RfC is taking place is the only fair thing to do. I note that, of the many commenters that Mr. Gastrich solicited to the AfD discussions, most of them came, put down their pro-keep comments and disappeared again. They're completely welcome to comment on the RfC pages; where are they? rodii04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. WP:AGF - the reason for posting it on those AfDs was precisely because Gastrich has asked all his friends to come along, so that is the place where it is most likely that all those involved will see it. The alternative is either chasing round dozens of user Talk pages or (as some do) simply not saying anything and allowing those who are familiar with RfC to find it if they can. But an allegation of vandalism from a man who nominated for deletion a whole batch of articles, including the first President of Angola, apparently on the sole grounds that they are known atheists is, in any case, a bit rich. Still, that's the first tiome Gastrich has given me a good laugh, so it's not all bad. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?09:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Pat is not completely familiar with the RfC process. You can endorse the main summary, you can also endorse the outside views and other suggestions. As Rodii says, it's not a vote, it's a process for gauging the community consensus as to what has been done, how bad it is, and what remedies might be appropriate. More like a Friends meeting than a courtroom. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Enough already! Can this process be brought to a close? I think the main protagonists have had their say now and the debate will just degenerate from hereon in. --kingboyk19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen from lurking about, unless things escalate, RfCs just sort of trail off and everybody wanders away to do other things. Mark K. Bilbo20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi JzG, can you please validate your additions to the Safe Speed article by providing citations for the evidence and research you refer to with regard to:
Damage caused in a collision increases with the difference in mass.
The change in fatality trend is largely not on roads where pedestrians are common.
Studies of injuries to elderly pedestrians show that SUVs are disproportionately dangerous to this group.
Ah yes, I remember that now. Here's the deal: That was only my 756th edit, most of which had been to article space. I had just gotten into the new page patrol scene and was still in the cut and dry newbie wikilawyering phase. The situtation as it appears now is different than it ws earlier. He appears to be posting a bio now, which I believe should be, and if you check my contributions you will see I do, userfied. At the time of my comment, he was using Misplaced Pages to host the syllabus of his class at Tehran University. I can't give you a link as the page was deleted and not being an admin I don't have access to the logs. That wasn't really appropriate to userfy, IMO, but I also don't think it would have occurred to me to do so early in my interaction with Misplaced Pages.
I agree that there has been too much newbie biting recently and frequently add welcome notes when I come across unwelcomed users. I was recently involved in my own one man crusade to prevent a newbie forom being bitten too hard, see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/REMAGINE. This was one of the worst cases I've seen, not necessarily because of what was sadi to them but because of the way they took it and how unwilling older editors were to look at it from their point of view. I am not quite sure yet where my niche of the encyclopedia is, but whenever the oppportunity arises I will join you in your crusade to userfy.
OK, sorry to have gone off on one. It's not a crusade really, I am just very thoroughlt persuaded by (as it turns out) your arguments at REMAGINE! My brain is going soft in my old age. To quote the prophet, "d'oh!" - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi
Hi, The speedy delete on this may be technically correct but I find it hard to believe it's the best solution for the author of 17 books. And you're quite right about not biting. Dlyons493Talk19:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
On the Jason Gastrich RfC Talk page, you said "The real problem is that checkuser takes a long time because it relies on the goodwill of a very small number of people (roughly one) so results take time to gather. Hopefully it can be expedited since this process is somewhat stalled in the mean time." Is there anything that Joe Schmoe Editor like me can offer to help that process--not just for this issue, but to reduce the overall bottleneck? Justin Eiler23:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Not really, I think. It's been discussed elsewhere but fundamentally it's a privacy issue, and a very high level of trust (and indeed technical competence) is required. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have an interest in epidemiology, or is this a hasty conclusion? Anycase, please have a look at epidemiology, as well as the WP:TIGERS at work on the talkpage. JFW | T@lk18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm so very sorry... I wondered why this fellow JzG, that I'd never heard of, got so many supports. It took me until today, just now to realize this was YOU! If I weren't so dim, rest assured that you have had another support for your impressive total. Mea culpa and best wishes, Xoloz18:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't understand where it was from until I re-read the book yesterday and it hit me. Nice obscure reference there. --Cyde Weys20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Am I missing something? I don't have a dog in this race, but listing the names and number of Flight 11 victims doesn't seem to me to violate the guideline about WP not being a memorial. A comprehensive, verified list could be of historical value, especially to journalists.
I get the feeling that there's more to this AfD than meets the eye at first glance, but I can't figure out what. -Ikkyu204:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a bit of WP:POINT behind it (someone wants to resurrect the list of voctims of 9/11), so it's a principle really. There is an established convention that we don't have lists with very large numbers of candidates, and lists of people where the vast majority will never have articles are also uncommon. It's an interesting philosophical point: the larger the disaster the longer the list, so it's perversely more likely that a list will slip by for some small incident than for something truly significant. For my money I don't really see what the list of names adds to our understanding of a given disaster. x people killed versus x people killed and these are their names seems to me to be venturing into cruft, and in a lot of cases people are afraid to speak out because it's a tragedy. One more reason why I don't think anything should be on the 'pedia until time has had a chance to put it in perspective. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?08:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
JzG, I need a mildly more level-headed backup here. I'm being lambasted by the article's author that I'm a deletionista, biased and all the happy things, including that I'm incorrect in applying WP:WEB to a site and that refactoring what is becoming a lengthy discussion to the talk page. I've asked for proof of anything regarding WP:WEB, or any other policy, and despite attempts to be civil, he's leaving veiled personal attacks on me and (as usual) using deletionist in a perjorative sense. If you could offer any guidance on this, that'd be freakin' swell. Thanks. RasputinAXP talkcontribs12:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think your edit is a big improvement over the previous version (but could you please add the {{citation needed}} tag after the word "Trekkers" to invite other editors to add a reference if something is published in the future? It may also serve to help David improve his understanding of WP:NOR etc.)
Also thanks for weighing in on the warnings on David's Talk page. I hope he will take you seriously.
Any advice would be very welcome. I feel especially at a loss whether or not I should simply walk away from the four articles where David has added this. AvB ÷ talk13:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. No, don't walk away - that is not the way forward. His comments about you are out of line to my reading, what you wrote on his talk page looks pretty moderate to me, but then I am not trying to push a strong opinion into a series of articles. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I hope this type of thing won't happen too often. I know I'll handle it somewhat differently next time. Perhaps David will too. I, for one, am learning a lot here on Misplaced Pages. AvB ÷ talk13:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Policy proposal
Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 such verses:
from the article motorized bicycle you recently removed my OGG video with the explanation of "vanity". you detailed explanation would now be appreciated in regards to:
"From CyclePat's". Also, per policy, we do not link to resources requiring external players (with PDFs being a grey area). Incidentally, those redlinks are still red. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
HUh? What Pdf? You should know by cliking the little info media help, beside the video you'll be directed on how you can watch that video. Misplaced Pages encourages the use of OGG video format and suggests it to be the only format we should use for video files. Now what's this red link stuf? --CyclePat22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, apparently. Links to media requiring external players are deprecated (I only found that out by accident). Oh, incidentally - an article does not become {{disputed}} simply because it does not include everything you want it to include. The disputed tag is for articles where there is reasonable grounds to dispute the accuracy of the contents. That very clearly does not apply to motorized bicycle, especially since 100% of all disputes stem from a single user. - Just zis Guy, you know? /AfD?13:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
AfD? 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
AfD? 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
