An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that you left me a warning. I had undone your previous edit, which I assumed was vandalism; because you deleted all of the links to well documented pages of clerical abuse. For instance, you deleted links to the pages for John Geoghan whose page has references from the New York Times and Boston Globe. The reason that there aren't direct references on the page is because it was originally a part of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases entry. I would appreciate it if you would review this and add a statement beneath your warning on my talk page stating that your warning was due to a misunderstanding. Mrbusta ( talk) 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a good point that too many eager beavers forget - "why is the IP upset with this text?". Neil ☎ 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why you delete articles about people working in professional capacities in let's say the film industry, because of them not being notable enough, but yet the site has many articles about porn stars, who aren't even really famous of infamous. This is in regards to your recent deletion of my collegue Giovanni Igneri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me Artie ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There are thousands of entries for athletic clubs in Wiki. There is an entry for a much younger club at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Rugby_Club
What is going on here?
70.70.24.221 ( talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious why you deleted the criminal charges section of Frank LaGrotta because of the status of the Beaver County Times. What's wrong with a local newspaper, as long as it's independent of the subject? It seems by your criteria that no local paper would be sufficient, just big ones. Surely there's no need to revert back and forth on this, so I've reposted this with a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source, but I'd like you to reconsider your criteria or characterisation. Nyttend ( talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
James
Any idea why deletion was recommended for the Meraloma Club as a wiki entry...
"LOCAL SPORTS CLUB" does not seem like a good reason...
Any idea what this was all about? I blocked Chickpeafacelickscourtney due to the similarly between them and Chickpeaface and rolled the page back. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think
69.108.139.127 is the same user. He left
this on my talk page.
Xuchilbara (
talk)
15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Would you mind having a look at what's being said on the talk page today? Thank you! Chickpeaface 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw John and your posts on my talk page at 23:17, 28 November 2007, stopped posting, and logged off as I had some pressing business. I was responsive to requests by various people to stop. I wasn't aware I that you or anyone else was requesting some additional response as well. Your 23:19 block of me was two minutes after I stopped and logged off. Doc, why didn't you check my contributions before blocking me? Your block was wrong and you owe me an apology. -- Jreferee t/ c 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You should have a look at this article again - the problematic material was simply re-added wholesale, with demands for a line by line critique. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
but I linked it internally from the wikipage, so ??? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why the objection to the image? What harm does it do? Dick G 13:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe (and I could be mistaken) it violates our copyright policies. It isn't a matter of harm.-- Docg 13:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::(discussion concluded amicably on article talk page)-- Docg 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have looked into the relevant PD tags and am confident the image falls within {{PD-old-70}}. As a courtesy I thought I'd let you know before I restore it to the article. Please let me know if you have any comment. Cheers Dick G ( talk) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As an admin, are you able to block 134.34.16.39 from continuing to label Shaukat Aziz as the Economic Hitman of Pakistan?
are you able to undo escape orbit's repeated reverse-vandalism of this page? whilst i'm sure he's acting under the best intentions, the edits he's reverting are actually correct and valid (as unlikely as they may seem). Nick was actually my brother and I can verify everything upon request. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.42.51 ( talk) 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "01:30, December 3, 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:R/EFD" (: Speedy deleted per (CSD G10), was a attack page intented to disparage its subject. using TW)"... Really??? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you were kind enough to revert that vandalism. (sorry, for technical reasons I can't give you the diff) Both of that user's edits have included vandalism of my edits. Would you have any suggestions as to how to best address this? Hesitant as I always am to use the word, this does look like a "trolling" account. Thanks. Risker 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... "Best candidate yet"?? While I am deeply flattered, I am also in complete disagreement! :) Still the fact that there is such a number of truly excellent candidates means WP is in good shape. Still I appreciated and got a chuckle from your comment. Kind regards Manning ( talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You have said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, so I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I'm sorry of my careless comments on IRC have led you to that conclusion. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My complaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying. You should not make that allegation unless you can provide evidence.-- Docg 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You are a good man. Risker ( talk) 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc, I am trying to exhaust my administrative remedies with the so-called "community" prior to arriving at a situation that I believe will be actionable with the Foundation. JoshuaZ deleted this good-faith comment of mine on the WP:DRV page and blocked my IP. His actions are not too smart. Here is the statement that he deleted:
I appreciate Doc's efforts to solve the problems I mentioned on the WP:BLP/Noticeboard on December 1. In the event that the redirect deletion currently under consideration here results in the restoration of the Daniel_Brandt redirect, I plan to petition the Foundation to install a change in the Wikipedia software.
When Wikipedia deletes a page, the software does not return a 404 "not found" in the headers. And when it redirects a page, it does not return a 301 or 302 "redirect" in the headers. In both cases it still returns a 200 "OK" in the headers. In the first case the little page says that a file does not exist by this name. In the second case, the file is the complete page of the target to which it was redirected.
In terms of search engine behavior, the reason why a deleted page quickly wipes out the search engine juice that previously built up for that page, is because a single one-line header is added to that page: meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow". On the redirected page, this header is absent.
I contend that this is a programming error that violates my privacy. The proper way to handle a redirect on Wikipedia is to use a five second refresh to the target page, with a note on the instant page that it will be redirected in a few seconds, and if it doesn't, then click on this new URL. Then at the same time, you can include the "noindex,nofollow" in the headers. The effect of this would be to deny search-engine juice to the target page, for any and all juice that built up for the instant page before the redirect was installed. The juice for the target page will have to be derived on the basis of its own independent merits.
Since this is a matter of correcting a programming bug that has privacy implications, I will request that the Foundation instruct their employee software developers to install this change. I feel that in this situation, there is little chance that the Foundation can presume Section 230 immunity as an excuse to ignore my request. —Daniel Brandt
I've noticed Brandt's comment above and that you did not erase it but instead responded. Brandt is banned, and per WP:BAN is not allowed to make any edits to Wikipedia. The fact that the above contains yet another gratuitous legal threat from Brandt only makes it more egregious. Furthermore, your pointing to his edit in the comments section may run afoul of Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users. I am strongly inclined to remove the above section per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits and am only not doing so because a) it is possible that it might increase drama and b) out of courtesy to you. How you wish to deal with this I leave up to you for now. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Brandt made another comment on this page. I've blocked the IP address and have taken the liberty of semi-protecting your talk page. The more recent comment (visible in your talk page history) did not even have the semblance of being at all useful. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Brandt may be banned from participating in wikipedia. However, I view it essential that the subject of a BLP has a right of comment on articles directly concerning him - providing they are rational and constructive. Please do not remove posts from my talk page. I see nothing in the policies that are pointed to above that justifies this. WP:BAN states: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. 1) I have NOT taken and will NOT take 'direction' from any user. 2) I can confirm that "the changes are verifiable and [I] have independent reasons for making them". OK.-- Docg 09:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no 'right' to edit wikipedia. Editing is a privilege - and the community or arbcom is entitled to remove that privilege from people who it deems (rightly or wrongly) have abused it. Brandt as a 'banned user' has had his editorial participation privileges removed - that's certain. Any atempt by him to act as an editorial participant in wikipedia should be blocked, and his contributions removed. However, any member of the public who is directly affected by our articles MUST have the right to correspond directly with the community, in regards to those articles. It will be said that the subject can contact the Foundation or OTRS via e-mail, but that will really not do. Under s230, the Foundation eschew any control over the content of articles - content is controlled by the community, and the community defends that right vigorously. You can't have it both ways: you can't say the community is responsible for content, but someone affected by that content cannot correspond with the community. That's simply a denial of natural justice. And OTRS is not a method whereby an individual can correspond with the community; unless OTRS ops are going to pass on messages by posting them in a public place when the subject asks.
Look people don't like Brandt, and probably with good cause. However, when I was doing OTRS I responded to e-mails from racists, convicted paedophiles, neo-nazis and a host of other people who made my skin crawl. I did so because my moral disapproval is beside the point, any subject has a right for concerns to be heard.-- Docg 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it not be within policy for Brandt to create a registered account, enable its e-mail feature, and use it for e-mail and watchlisting only without actually editing from it? That would allow him to correspond with Wikipedians without placing people like Doc glasgow in a difficult position. Durova Charge! 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. :o -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw you deleted some edits related to this from other articles; would you mind checking out the talk page? Specifically the conversation at the end between myself, Moonridden, and Whisper? Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please include your thoughts at the following request for comment: Talk:Peter Yarrow#RfC: Conviction and pardon. Thank you -- Jkp212 ( talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't convince me that you're a doctor. Having spent nine years at medical school it pains me to see importers like you giving dangerous advice. Please confirm your qualifications to conduct medicine.
Yours,
Dr. Hazel Bull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.134 ( talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Your paranoia quote at the top of this page is about the best and most concise statement I've read on the current situation. ATren ( talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am seeing you for details. Why'd you delete a page that was used for a merge? That raises not a few GFDL issues.
If the reasons are private, we can arrange a better venue. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? The redirect kept our Wikipedia "article" (actually a redirect) at the top of Google? That kind of raises serious questions about how our redirects can have that effect. I suspect this might be to do with lots of incoming links from external sites pointing at what had been turned into a redirect. If I understand Google rankings correctly, that large number of external links pointing to out page keeps our page up at the top of Google results. So once an article suffers the "Wikipedia effect", the only way to reduce the Google ranking is to delete it? That sucks. Sometimes redirecting is the right solution. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Doc, it came to my attention that you deleted the redirect from that article. This is a direct violation of the GFDL and is a highly controversial behavior. Please discuss this with me in more detail either here or by email. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, we are now GFDL compliant here. In future please do not reverse an admin action during a discussion. More talk less haste. All concerns should now have been met.-- Docg 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, since we allknow where this is headed, I've taken it to DRV myself. [3]-- Docg 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc, you started Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Protected and don't seem to be watching it. What are your intentions towards the protection, please?
In a way, that's my frustration with the original argument - the people on the other side of the argument are not only not making any effort to address our concerns, they aren't saying anything at all, just occasionally silently reverting. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
EFD was a joke, intended to create a friendly atmosphere between users, which, according to the comments posed there, it did. Anytime you see the {{humor}} tag on a page, it's a joke. Nobody ever got deleted. Had it been real, it would've been in the Wikipedia namespace. Please respond on my talk page. Best, -- Gp75motorsports ( talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to clarify myself. Your opening statement demonstrated a subtle understanding of GDFL copyright. I studied writing in graduate school where a course in related law was required curriculum. Frankly your decision you made to recreate the page history displays a better understanding of copyright than my own knowledge. I was impressed; that angle wouldn't have occurred to me unless I had outside advice. I wondered whether you might have had assistance in arriving at that solution.
A second reason why I conjectured Foundation involvement is Daniel Brandt's long history of legal threats. If I had been in your position I probably would have given the Foundation a heads up in advance of taking any action. Personal experience has something to do with that; I wound up on Hive Mind about six weeks after nominating Mr. Brandt's bio for deletion. Once burned, twice shy. Durova Charge! 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a look at the current lead of the Santa Claus article. I have sourced two The New York Times and the London Evening Standard that children primarily believe in Santa Claus. Additionally, there is an MSNBC poll provided showing children believe in Santa. Two "Santa is real" supporters feel this is POV (one removed the "primarily" word as a "weasel word"), and one, User:Jeffpw, found a Canadian marketing survey that showed out of 1000 Canadian adults, 300 believe in Santa and 700 did not. So I added the wording "(and a small number of adults)" with the source. This is now being called POV on my part. We could stand to have some--*ahem*--adult supervision. --David Shankbone 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about some of the things you are yanking out of Halle Berry. I am in the middle of doing a WP:GAC review and noticed the changes such as the curious removal of the accident section and information about her pregnancy.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your closure. The debate has still a few hours to run. Now that's no biggy in itself, but given you've already twice tried to speedy close this, you are not in a neutral position to be the one closing this. It will look like you are over keen to get in first. Please leave it to someone, as yet, uninvolved.-- Docg 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Like you, I have a great deal of difficulty becoming too concerned over a redirect. Thanks for the kind word. Best wishes, Xoloz ( talk) 14:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc, I noticed just now that in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war you were "strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of page" and you have now gone and participated in what amounts to another wheel war (whether or not my undeletion was wheeling warring, your subsequent deletion almost certainly was). I therefore hope that in the future you will not make out of process deletions especially where this matter is concerned. JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you please rejoin the conversation. Your input would be helpful. David in DC ( talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had to revert an edit you made to WP:ANI. I don't know what happened, but something went wrong. A ecis Brievenbus 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I only just noticed you deleted List of convicted or indicted religious leaders about a month ago. You may not have noticed that it went under for deletion earlier and resulted in no consensus. Regardless, if I recall correctly, most/all of the claims were sourced in the individuals articles and not the page itself. I understand that they should have been sourced in the list as well, but without the history it's hard for someone to add the sources. I'd appreciate if you would restore the article (with all entries removed from the list, if you like) so the history is available for editors to add them back with sources. Thanks RB 9 7 2 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Doc. I'm not sure if you remember me, but I reported a user in the
BLP Noticeboard. You blocked this user for a week.
Now, a new account with a very similar name of that user, is editing on the articles I reported and other fews. This new user is adding the same uncited information. The new account is
FatChris1.
I'll wait to your response and see if it is necessary to report it as a sucker sockpuppeteer. Reply here, thank you.--
Tasc0
01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW I completely agree with your assessment on deleting user talk pages- I've been trying to discourage this practice for a while now. A couple weeks ago I removed mention of "right to vanish" from the user page guideline. So far nobody has complained. I think this silly notion of "right to vanish" is way overblown- it should just mean "you can leave any time and nobody will chase you down", but lots of people read it as "if you claim to be leaving, we'll give you a pack of smokes, last meal, and grant all your parting requests." If we tend to ignore people who claim to be leaving instead of fawning all over them, we'll help encourage a reduced-drama environment. Friday (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
...why you restored Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping after it had been deleted per a CFD discussion? I can find no evidence of a deletion review or any discussion with the closing admin. I might consider the possibility that you discussed it with him off-wiki, but it's unlikely that you would use "nonsense deletion" as your restoration summary had you done that. I would appreciate your clarifications on the matter. Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the above (as I don't wish to interrupt your discussion), unless requested. I merely want to clarify that in no way shape or form was any closure I have ever made indicative of "payback". After Midnight, Black Falcon, and I (and others, though it varies who and how often. VegaDark has returned, for example) tend to close WP:UCFD discussions. I tend to not close the alma mater discussions, which I believe left only 2 to close. And so I closed them. I suppose one could argue whether I'm a "regular" at closing DRV discussions (I don't believe I am, though I have done so before), but good luck claiming I'm not a regular at WP:UCFD. Personally I'm just tired of being accused of things which I'm not, and which I feel aren't true. I'd like just a little more good faith. Anyway, please feel free to continue your discussion. I was considering re-deleting per G4 (recreation), but I'd rather see what can come of discussion. - jc37 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. — Whig ( talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You protected the page and referred to OTRS. Is it safe to unprotect the page now, or is there ongoing issues? - Royalguard11( T· R!) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc, would you mind casting an uninvolved eye over something? There has been trouble for a long time on Carl Hewitt, including an ArbCom case, with allegations that he is being harassed by WP, and counter-allegations that someone is using the page to promote him. I'm not familar with the case, so I don't know the details. The article is indefinitely protected as a result of the dispute.
Someone, presumably a Wikipedian, tipped off a freelancer, and the Observer published a brief story on it. Now, people keep posting links to the article on the talk page, and restored it when it's removed. I've therefore protected the talk page on BLP grounds (I'm intending the protection for a short time only), because the article can't be edited, and the Observer piece is too self-referential to be used as a source so there's no need to keep discussing it on talk. Viridae supported the protection, but others are objecting. Some discussion here, but mainly here. If you could give an opinion, it would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. This image fits two Wikipedia acceptable use criteria, which are already carefully explained on the image page. The notice gives no acknowledgement that these were even read. I've added a dispute tag. This is acceptable non-free fair use. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being so thorough (both times)! Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Easy-peasy! Congratulations! Giano ( talk) 09:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize you've reverted three times within a short while? ...oy, and now you've reverted me, too. That's four. You should block yourself for 3RR vio. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
No, I've reverted Giano twice and you only once. Bishonen, Giano, please, this isn't helpful. If you have a grievance the fist step is to post a complaint to the channel owners. Of course people should not use such language, but this is not the way to pursue it, and you know it. You are only going to stir up an unhelpful drama. Have you filed a complaint?-- Docg 14:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope this isn't just a prelude to posting logs to force the privacy issue, that truly would be viewed as pathetic.-- Docg 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to judge that. However, now having seen the logs, I concur that Tony's remarks were inflammatory, and that the channel ops should act to ensure there are no repeats. If that means permanently banning, so be it, but I always prefer reform and redemption. It seems however that your assertion that the ops do nothing has proved, in this particular case, to be premature.-- Docg 15:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You can't find that language? You have mail. You have the relevant log. In case you, too, assume I'm making it up, please compare it with one of the many logs produced by the many lurkers in the channel. I think Lar logs 24/7, for instance. BTW, I've removed a few lines (nothing of the lightest significance) from the log I sent, trying to make sure your "E-mail this user" function would be able to manage my message; but if you give me your e-mail address, I can replace that log with a pixel-perfect one. And, as distasteful as it is, I can dig out the log of the ancient event being referred to, too--the original "bastard bitch from hell" incident from September 2006. I'd really rather not go into such ancient history, but since I'm accused of lying, I'm prepared to prove I'm not.
Bishonen |
talk
15:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
What is Tony doing at that channel in the first place? What constitutes the entitlement to access? Being liked by Forrester is one. Being an admin is not as admins are kickbanned by non-admins (liked by Forrester) on the whim. So, is there anything but being liked by Forrester in the rules? And, again, what is Tony doing there? --
Irpen
00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you are on of the channel's sysops. That's why. -- Irpen 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you unblocked Giano 61 minutes after the placement of the original 1 hour/3RR block. I had already reduced the 24 hour block by making it 15 minutes for the original tariff less time served - but erring on the side of caution. Giano's block would have expired at most 5 minutes after you lifted it... :~) I would also comment that I gave notice of my actions to User:Coredesat who was gracious enough to say that they would not contest the reduction, so hopefully your actions will have the same reaction. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I know you had good intentions, what with Christmas truces and stuff, but deleting the page isn't really the way forward. I've undeleted it, even though deleted is really how I'd rather it be. I.e. you give me a victory if you delete it, as I think any website that truly is "not part of Wikipedia" shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia, and anything that we link to from Wikipedia and give the Wikipedia name to ought to function exactly by our rules and policies. However, I don't think that deleting unilaterally is the answer. (Sweeping things under the carpet just makes for a lumpy carpet.) Mind you, I have extremely negative opinions of the page and its owner, but, so long he doesn't go about blocking people, issuing protection, etc., to stop legitimate users from expressing legitimate concerns, that's irrelevant. Geogre ( talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that you left me a warning. I had undone your previous edit, which I assumed was vandalism; because you deleted all of the links to well documented pages of clerical abuse. For instance, you deleted links to the pages for John Geoghan whose page has references from the New York Times and Boston Globe. The reason that there aren't direct references on the page is because it was originally a part of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases entry. I would appreciate it if you would review this and add a statement beneath your warning on my talk page stating that your warning was due to a misunderstanding. Mrbusta ( talk) 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a good point that too many eager beavers forget - "why is the IP upset with this text?". Neil ☎ 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why you delete articles about people working in professional capacities in let's say the film industry, because of them not being notable enough, but yet the site has many articles about porn stars, who aren't even really famous of infamous. This is in regards to your recent deletion of my collegue Giovanni Igneri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me Artie ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There are thousands of entries for athletic clubs in Wiki. There is an entry for a much younger club at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Rugby_Club
What is going on here?
70.70.24.221 ( talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious why you deleted the criminal charges section of Frank LaGrotta because of the status of the Beaver County Times. What's wrong with a local newspaper, as long as it's independent of the subject? It seems by your criteria that no local paper would be sufficient, just big ones. Surely there's no need to revert back and forth on this, so I've reposted this with a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette source, but I'd like you to reconsider your criteria or characterisation. Nyttend ( talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
James
Any idea why deletion was recommended for the Meraloma Club as a wiki entry...
"LOCAL SPORTS CLUB" does not seem like a good reason...
Any idea what this was all about? I blocked Chickpeafacelickscourtney due to the similarly between them and Chickpeaface and rolled the page back. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think
69.108.139.127 is the same user. He left
this on my talk page.
Xuchilbara (
talk)
15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Would you mind having a look at what's being said on the talk page today? Thank you! Chickpeaface 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw John and your posts on my talk page at 23:17, 28 November 2007, stopped posting, and logged off as I had some pressing business. I was responsive to requests by various people to stop. I wasn't aware I that you or anyone else was requesting some additional response as well. Your 23:19 block of me was two minutes after I stopped and logged off. Doc, why didn't you check my contributions before blocking me? Your block was wrong and you owe me an apology. -- Jreferee t/ c 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You should have a look at this article again - the problematic material was simply re-added wholesale, with demands for a line by line critique. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
but I linked it internally from the wikipage, so ??? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why the objection to the image? What harm does it do? Dick G 13:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe (and I could be mistaken) it violates our copyright policies. It isn't a matter of harm.-- Docg 13:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::(discussion concluded amicably on article talk page)-- Docg 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have looked into the relevant PD tags and am confident the image falls within {{PD-old-70}}. As a courtesy I thought I'd let you know before I restore it to the article. Please let me know if you have any comment. Cheers Dick G ( talk) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As an admin, are you able to block 134.34.16.39 from continuing to label Shaukat Aziz as the Economic Hitman of Pakistan?
are you able to undo escape orbit's repeated reverse-vandalism of this page? whilst i'm sure he's acting under the best intentions, the edits he's reverting are actually correct and valid (as unlikely as they may seem). Nick was actually my brother and I can verify everything upon request. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.42.51 ( talk) 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "01:30, December 3, 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:R/EFD" (: Speedy deleted per (CSD G10), was a attack page intented to disparage its subject. using TW)"... Really??? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you were kind enough to revert that vandalism. (sorry, for technical reasons I can't give you the diff) Both of that user's edits have included vandalism of my edits. Would you have any suggestions as to how to best address this? Hesitant as I always am to use the word, this does look like a "trolling" account. Thanks. Risker 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... "Best candidate yet"?? While I am deeply flattered, I am also in complete disagreement! :) Still the fact that there is such a number of truly excellent candidates means WP is in good shape. Still I appreciated and got a chuckle from your comment. Kind regards Manning ( talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You have said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, so I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I'm sorry of my careless comments on IRC have led you to that conclusion. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My complaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying. You should not make that allegation unless you can provide evidence.-- Docg 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You are a good man. Risker ( talk) 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc, I am trying to exhaust my administrative remedies with the so-called "community" prior to arriving at a situation that I believe will be actionable with the Foundation. JoshuaZ deleted this good-faith comment of mine on the WP:DRV page and blocked my IP. His actions are not too smart. Here is the statement that he deleted:
I appreciate Doc's efforts to solve the problems I mentioned on the WP:BLP/Noticeboard on December 1. In the event that the redirect deletion currently under consideration here results in the restoration of the Daniel_Brandt redirect, I plan to petition the Foundation to install a change in the Wikipedia software.
When Wikipedia deletes a page, the software does not return a 404 "not found" in the headers. And when it redirects a page, it does not return a 301 or 302 "redirect" in the headers. In both cases it still returns a 200 "OK" in the headers. In the first case the little page says that a file does not exist by this name. In the second case, the file is the complete page of the target to which it was redirected.
In terms of search engine behavior, the reason why a deleted page quickly wipes out the search engine juice that previously built up for that page, is because a single one-line header is added to that page: meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow". On the redirected page, this header is absent.
I contend that this is a programming error that violates my privacy. The proper way to handle a redirect on Wikipedia is to use a five second refresh to the target page, with a note on the instant page that it will be redirected in a few seconds, and if it doesn't, then click on this new URL. Then at the same time, you can include the "noindex,nofollow" in the headers. The effect of this would be to deny search-engine juice to the target page, for any and all juice that built up for the instant page before the redirect was installed. The juice for the target page will have to be derived on the basis of its own independent merits.
Since this is a matter of correcting a programming bug that has privacy implications, I will request that the Foundation instruct their employee software developers to install this change. I feel that in this situation, there is little chance that the Foundation can presume Section 230 immunity as an excuse to ignore my request. —Daniel Brandt
I've noticed Brandt's comment above and that you did not erase it but instead responded. Brandt is banned, and per WP:BAN is not allowed to make any edits to Wikipedia. The fact that the above contains yet another gratuitous legal threat from Brandt only makes it more egregious. Furthermore, your pointing to his edit in the comments section may run afoul of Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users. I am strongly inclined to remove the above section per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits and am only not doing so because a) it is possible that it might increase drama and b) out of courtesy to you. How you wish to deal with this I leave up to you for now. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Brandt made another comment on this page. I've blocked the IP address and have taken the liberty of semi-protecting your talk page. The more recent comment (visible in your talk page history) did not even have the semblance of being at all useful. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Brandt may be banned from participating in wikipedia. However, I view it essential that the subject of a BLP has a right of comment on articles directly concerning him - providing they are rational and constructive. Please do not remove posts from my talk page. I see nothing in the policies that are pointed to above that justifies this. WP:BAN states: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. 1) I have NOT taken and will NOT take 'direction' from any user. 2) I can confirm that "the changes are verifiable and [I] have independent reasons for making them". OK.-- Docg 09:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no 'right' to edit wikipedia. Editing is a privilege - and the community or arbcom is entitled to remove that privilege from people who it deems (rightly or wrongly) have abused it. Brandt as a 'banned user' has had his editorial participation privileges removed - that's certain. Any atempt by him to act as an editorial participant in wikipedia should be blocked, and his contributions removed. However, any member of the public who is directly affected by our articles MUST have the right to correspond directly with the community, in regards to those articles. It will be said that the subject can contact the Foundation or OTRS via e-mail, but that will really not do. Under s230, the Foundation eschew any control over the content of articles - content is controlled by the community, and the community defends that right vigorously. You can't have it both ways: you can't say the community is responsible for content, but someone affected by that content cannot correspond with the community. That's simply a denial of natural justice. And OTRS is not a method whereby an individual can correspond with the community; unless OTRS ops are going to pass on messages by posting them in a public place when the subject asks.
Look people don't like Brandt, and probably with good cause. However, when I was doing OTRS I responded to e-mails from racists, convicted paedophiles, neo-nazis and a host of other people who made my skin crawl. I did so because my moral disapproval is beside the point, any subject has a right for concerns to be heard.-- Docg 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it not be within policy for Brandt to create a registered account, enable its e-mail feature, and use it for e-mail and watchlisting only without actually editing from it? That would allow him to correspond with Wikipedians without placing people like Doc glasgow in a difficult position. Durova Charge! 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. :o -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw you deleted some edits related to this from other articles; would you mind checking out the talk page? Specifically the conversation at the end between myself, Moonridden, and Whisper? Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please include your thoughts at the following request for comment: Talk:Peter Yarrow#RfC: Conviction and pardon. Thank you -- Jkp212 ( talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't convince me that you're a doctor. Having spent nine years at medical school it pains me to see importers like you giving dangerous advice. Please confirm your qualifications to conduct medicine.
Yours,
Dr. Hazel Bull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.134 ( talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Your paranoia quote at the top of this page is about the best and most concise statement I've read on the current situation. ATren ( talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am seeing you for details. Why'd you delete a page that was used for a merge? That raises not a few GFDL issues.
If the reasons are private, we can arrange a better venue. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? The redirect kept our Wikipedia "article" (actually a redirect) at the top of Google? That kind of raises serious questions about how our redirects can have that effect. I suspect this might be to do with lots of incoming links from external sites pointing at what had been turned into a redirect. If I understand Google rankings correctly, that large number of external links pointing to out page keeps our page up at the top of Google results. So once an article suffers the "Wikipedia effect", the only way to reduce the Google ranking is to delete it? That sucks. Sometimes redirecting is the right solution. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Doc, it came to my attention that you deleted the redirect from that article. This is a direct violation of the GFDL and is a highly controversial behavior. Please discuss this with me in more detail either here or by email. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, we are now GFDL compliant here. In future please do not reverse an admin action during a discussion. More talk less haste. All concerns should now have been met.-- Docg 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, since we allknow where this is headed, I've taken it to DRV myself. [3]-- Docg 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc, you started Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Protected and don't seem to be watching it. What are your intentions towards the protection, please?
In a way, that's my frustration with the original argument - the people on the other side of the argument are not only not making any effort to address our concerns, they aren't saying anything at all, just occasionally silently reverting. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
EFD was a joke, intended to create a friendly atmosphere between users, which, according to the comments posed there, it did. Anytime you see the {{humor}} tag on a page, it's a joke. Nobody ever got deleted. Had it been real, it would've been in the Wikipedia namespace. Please respond on my talk page. Best, -- Gp75motorsports ( talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to clarify myself. Your opening statement demonstrated a subtle understanding of GDFL copyright. I studied writing in graduate school where a course in related law was required curriculum. Frankly your decision you made to recreate the page history displays a better understanding of copyright than my own knowledge. I was impressed; that angle wouldn't have occurred to me unless I had outside advice. I wondered whether you might have had assistance in arriving at that solution.
A second reason why I conjectured Foundation involvement is Daniel Brandt's long history of legal threats. If I had been in your position I probably would have given the Foundation a heads up in advance of taking any action. Personal experience has something to do with that; I wound up on Hive Mind about six weeks after nominating Mr. Brandt's bio for deletion. Once burned, twice shy. Durova Charge! 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a look at the current lead of the Santa Claus article. I have sourced two The New York Times and the London Evening Standard that children primarily believe in Santa Claus. Additionally, there is an MSNBC poll provided showing children believe in Santa. Two "Santa is real" supporters feel this is POV (one removed the "primarily" word as a "weasel word"), and one, User:Jeffpw, found a Canadian marketing survey that showed out of 1000 Canadian adults, 300 believe in Santa and 700 did not. So I added the wording "(and a small number of adults)" with the source. This is now being called POV on my part. We could stand to have some--*ahem*--adult supervision. --David Shankbone 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about some of the things you are yanking out of Halle Berry. I am in the middle of doing a WP:GAC review and noticed the changes such as the curious removal of the accident section and information about her pregnancy.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your closure. The debate has still a few hours to run. Now that's no biggy in itself, but given you've already twice tried to speedy close this, you are not in a neutral position to be the one closing this. It will look like you are over keen to get in first. Please leave it to someone, as yet, uninvolved.-- Docg 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Like you, I have a great deal of difficulty becoming too concerned over a redirect. Thanks for the kind word. Best wishes, Xoloz ( talk) 14:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc, I noticed just now that in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war you were "strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of page" and you have now gone and participated in what amounts to another wheel war (whether or not my undeletion was wheeling warring, your subsequent deletion almost certainly was). I therefore hope that in the future you will not make out of process deletions especially where this matter is concerned. JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you please rejoin the conversation. Your input would be helpful. David in DC ( talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had to revert an edit you made to WP:ANI. I don't know what happened, but something went wrong. A ecis Brievenbus 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I only just noticed you deleted List of convicted or indicted religious leaders about a month ago. You may not have noticed that it went under for deletion earlier and resulted in no consensus. Regardless, if I recall correctly, most/all of the claims were sourced in the individuals articles and not the page itself. I understand that they should have been sourced in the list as well, but without the history it's hard for someone to add the sources. I'd appreciate if you would restore the article (with all entries removed from the list, if you like) so the history is available for editors to add them back with sources. Thanks RB 9 7 2 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Doc. I'm not sure if you remember me, but I reported a user in the
BLP Noticeboard. You blocked this user for a week.
Now, a new account with a very similar name of that user, is editing on the articles I reported and other fews. This new user is adding the same uncited information. The new account is
FatChris1.
I'll wait to your response and see if it is necessary to report it as a sucker sockpuppeteer. Reply here, thank you.--
Tasc0
01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW I completely agree with your assessment on deleting user talk pages- I've been trying to discourage this practice for a while now. A couple weeks ago I removed mention of "right to vanish" from the user page guideline. So far nobody has complained. I think this silly notion of "right to vanish" is way overblown- it should just mean "you can leave any time and nobody will chase you down", but lots of people read it as "if you claim to be leaving, we'll give you a pack of smokes, last meal, and grant all your parting requests." If we tend to ignore people who claim to be leaving instead of fawning all over them, we'll help encourage a reduced-drama environment. Friday (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
...why you restored Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping after it had been deleted per a CFD discussion? I can find no evidence of a deletion review or any discussion with the closing admin. I might consider the possibility that you discussed it with him off-wiki, but it's unlikely that you would use "nonsense deletion" as your restoration summary had you done that. I would appreciate your clarifications on the matter. Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the above (as I don't wish to interrupt your discussion), unless requested. I merely want to clarify that in no way shape or form was any closure I have ever made indicative of "payback". After Midnight, Black Falcon, and I (and others, though it varies who and how often. VegaDark has returned, for example) tend to close WP:UCFD discussions. I tend to not close the alma mater discussions, which I believe left only 2 to close. And so I closed them. I suppose one could argue whether I'm a "regular" at closing DRV discussions (I don't believe I am, though I have done so before), but good luck claiming I'm not a regular at WP:UCFD. Personally I'm just tired of being accused of things which I'm not, and which I feel aren't true. I'd like just a little more good faith. Anyway, please feel free to continue your discussion. I was considering re-deleting per G4 (recreation), but I'd rather see what can come of discussion. - jc37 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. — Whig ( talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You protected the page and referred to OTRS. Is it safe to unprotect the page now, or is there ongoing issues? - Royalguard11( T· R!) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc, would you mind casting an uninvolved eye over something? There has been trouble for a long time on Carl Hewitt, including an ArbCom case, with allegations that he is being harassed by WP, and counter-allegations that someone is using the page to promote him. I'm not familar with the case, so I don't know the details. The article is indefinitely protected as a result of the dispute.
Someone, presumably a Wikipedian, tipped off a freelancer, and the Observer published a brief story on it. Now, people keep posting links to the article on the talk page, and restored it when it's removed. I've therefore protected the talk page on BLP grounds (I'm intending the protection for a short time only), because the article can't be edited, and the Observer piece is too self-referential to be used as a source so there's no need to keep discussing it on talk. Viridae supported the protection, but others are objecting. Some discussion here, but mainly here. If you could give an opinion, it would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. This image fits two Wikipedia acceptable use criteria, which are already carefully explained on the image page. The notice gives no acknowledgement that these were even read. I've added a dispute tag. This is acceptable non-free fair use. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being so thorough (both times)! Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Easy-peasy! Congratulations! Giano ( talk) 09:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize you've reverted three times within a short while? ...oy, and now you've reverted me, too. That's four. You should block yourself for 3RR vio. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
No, I've reverted Giano twice and you only once. Bishonen, Giano, please, this isn't helpful. If you have a grievance the fist step is to post a complaint to the channel owners. Of course people should not use such language, but this is not the way to pursue it, and you know it. You are only going to stir up an unhelpful drama. Have you filed a complaint?-- Docg 14:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope this isn't just a prelude to posting logs to force the privacy issue, that truly would be viewed as pathetic.-- Docg 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to judge that. However, now having seen the logs, I concur that Tony's remarks were inflammatory, and that the channel ops should act to ensure there are no repeats. If that means permanently banning, so be it, but I always prefer reform and redemption. It seems however that your assertion that the ops do nothing has proved, in this particular case, to be premature.-- Docg 15:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You can't find that language? You have mail. You have the relevant log. In case you, too, assume I'm making it up, please compare it with one of the many logs produced by the many lurkers in the channel. I think Lar logs 24/7, for instance. BTW, I've removed a few lines (nothing of the lightest significance) from the log I sent, trying to make sure your "E-mail this user" function would be able to manage my message; but if you give me your e-mail address, I can replace that log with a pixel-perfect one. And, as distasteful as it is, I can dig out the log of the ancient event being referred to, too--the original "bastard bitch from hell" incident from September 2006. I'd really rather not go into such ancient history, but since I'm accused of lying, I'm prepared to prove I'm not.
Bishonen |
talk
15:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
What is Tony doing at that channel in the first place? What constitutes the entitlement to access? Being liked by Forrester is one. Being an admin is not as admins are kickbanned by non-admins (liked by Forrester) on the whim. So, is there anything but being liked by Forrester in the rules? And, again, what is Tony doing there? --
Irpen
00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you are on of the channel's sysops. That's why. -- Irpen 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you unblocked Giano 61 minutes after the placement of the original 1 hour/3RR block. I had already reduced the 24 hour block by making it 15 minutes for the original tariff less time served - but erring on the side of caution. Giano's block would have expired at most 5 minutes after you lifted it... :~) I would also comment that I gave notice of my actions to User:Coredesat who was gracious enough to say that they would not contest the reduction, so hopefully your actions will have the same reaction. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I know you had good intentions, what with Christmas truces and stuff, but deleting the page isn't really the way forward. I've undeleted it, even though deleted is really how I'd rather it be. I.e. you give me a victory if you delete it, as I think any website that truly is "not part of Wikipedia" shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia, and anything that we link to from Wikipedia and give the Wikipedia name to ought to function exactly by our rules and policies. However, I don't think that deleting unilaterally is the answer. (Sweeping things under the carpet just makes for a lumpy carpet.) Mind you, I have extremely negative opinions of the page and its owner, but, so long he doesn't go about blocking people, issuing protection, etc., to stop legitimate users from expressing legitimate concerns, that's irrelevant. Geogre ( talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)