User:Dendodge/Yes

This user is a member of the Wikipedia Ultra Secret Inner Inner Cabal, a cabal so secret that not only am I not allowed to know who the other members are, I am not even allowed to know if there are any other members, and if I ever did find out that anyone else was a member I would have to kill them immediately. You can contact WUSIIC on #wikipedia-ultra-secret-inner-inner-cabal on Freenode. As a courtesy you are requested to kill yourself afterwards.

My crap Stuff and nonsense This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This user has a userpage on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. 15,000+ This user has made over 15,000 contributions to Wikipedia Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam. BEng This user has a Bachelor of Engineering degree. Reading June 2024 1 Saturday 11:57 pm UTC Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

I check in most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets. You can find me on facebook: my profile. Please include your WP username if sending a friend request.

Dispute resolution, Bible style - and actually an excellent model on Wikipedia as well.

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

— Matthew 18:15

Please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• Really bored? Visit my website: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
• Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing - read it now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

You added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Downs to the AfD log for March 14 without completing the nom. I recommend that if you complete the nom, you move it to the AfD log for March 15 since the nomination text was not completed on March 14. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your removal of a link to a copy of a work cited as a reference in the article: you may not have been aware that there is an extensive discussion here on the talk page of the article about this very link, and that both now and at the time you removed the link, the discussion showed a consensus to keep the link, in the conclusions section here. You're welcome to participate in the discussion. I've posted a comment here about your removal of the link and my revert of your edit. Unless consensus about the link changes on the talk page, please don't remove the link from the article again. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to get into any discussion where abd is involved, because I do not have an indefintie amount of time and Abd is completely incapable of accepting any result not to his liking. He has decided to mount a crusade on behalf of the owner of lenr-canr.org. I have no idea why. The site is useless for our purposes, every single thing there has to be viewed with deep suspicion. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm interested in the reasons why you view the site with suspicion. If there is any significant reason to think the work might be a copyright violation, please tell me what it is; I may be willing to investigate. It's my understanding that the only problem was that the site had added an editorial introduction, clearly marked as such, to the beginning of a different work; that isn't a reason not to link to this work. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The site is an advocacy vehicle for the fringe science topic of cold fusion. It claims to be a "library" but includes, for example, editorialised versions of the sources it claims to represent fairly. The site owner, Jed Rothwell, was a major factor in the cold fusion article's decline from FA to POV nonsense, and a lot of the material on there is copyright (as every piece of published material always is) but with no evidence of copyright release. Rothwell has spent years promoting the site on Wikipedia. It is not a reliable source, nor is it an acceptable source of "convenience copies" due to the extensive evidence posted in the past of playing fast and loose with copyright. Example: papers copyright Reed Elsevier, a company which has declined every request of which I am aware to allow third-party websites to republish full text. If Fleischmann has written a commentary and publishes it on his website then we can certainly link to it, if there is independent evidence of its significance, but in this case we have the cold fusion equivalent of the Discovery Institute being advanced as a source. Its goals and practices are fundamentally incompatible with ours. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External sites do not have to conform to a NPOV policy in order for us to link to a convenience copy there of a reference. The site is not being cited as a reliable source, but used as a provider of a convenience copy of the work. I haven't seen any such evidence of "playing fast and loose with copyright"; please provide diff links to where the evidence was posted. As far as I'm aware, people reprinting copyrighted material or posting it on the web don't usually display evidence of permission but simply state that it's printed or posted with permission (and I believe Wikipedia follows this same practice when permission has been emailed to permissions-en). If a copyright holder has turned down some permission requests I don't see that as being evidence that they turned down other permission requests; besides, you haven't specified the particular requests you're aware of. If the work in question is not copyrighted by Elsevier then concerns related to Elsevier seem irrelevant to linking to this convenience copy of the reference.

If you're ever impeded by the length of Abd's posts, feel free to ask me to summarize them for you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we have to adhere to WP:NPOV which means that polemical and unreliable sites are deprecated. We also have a copyright policy which does not make an exemption for "convenience". We also have a policy on undue weight which says that something is not taken to be significant unless reliable independent sources say it is significant. And Abd is an especial problem; every single time a debate starts up he begins by reiterating a litany of compaints every one of which has already been examined and dismissed numerous times before. So I choose to disengage. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JzG. Writegeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  08:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He emailed me, I told him that his request should directly address the reasons for blocking. If other admins think they do, then no problem. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please unblock writegeist, his apology looks sincere and palin is no longer such a sensitive subject. I can't get to a pc to do it, I am at a concert rehearsal and then will be singing till late. Guy from my BlackBerry - you will see the ip resolves to O2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.124 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Guy, but since I cannot verify that this is you, I would prefer that you unblock Writegeist yourself once you are back at the computer. He's been blocked for months now, and a day more or less won't make much of a difference.  Sandstein  19:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. Khoikhoi 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia used to have an article on Emerald City Supporters (ECS), which is a group of supporters of the Seattle Sounders (association) football team. The article got deleted in January 2007, the reason being cited was non-notable. That was a fair decision. Then somebody tried to add the page in August 2008 and it got deleted again, and after it was added again the same day, you deleted it and protected the page. These were also fair decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_City_Supporters

Now, the circumstances have since changed, and Emerald City Supporters has become a notable group, and I'd like to ask you to unprotect the page so that I can add it. I will add an article with more information than just a stub, and will include references.

Up until this year the ECS supported the Seattle Sounders who played in the USL division one, a minor league in North America. Now the ECS supports Seattle Sounders FC, which is a new club that plays on the highest level of US/Canadian soccer, Major League Soccer (MLS). The group has been around since 2005 and now has 600 members. As a source for this number and the group's general notability I can cite this article from Seattle Times, the main spreadsheet newspaper in Seattle:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannyoneil/2008952027_oneil31.html

There are also a number of other references that illustrate the notability of the ECS:

http://www.europeanweekly.net/pages/soccer/soccer2.htm

http://www.stadionwelt.de/neu/sw_fans/index.php?folder=sites&site=news_detail&news_id=1940 (in German)

http://www.themindofscads.com/2008/03/supporter-groups.html

I would also like to point out that a number of other supporter groups of MLS teams have articles in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Major_League_Soccer_fan_clubs

I would argue that many of these groups are less notable than Emerald City Supporters.

--Ludvigant (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a request for comment on your use of admin tools while involved. I regret that this has become necessary; I think you know that your response is suggested. --Abd (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are a complete waste of my limited time. I am seriously wondering if you are on the autistic spectrum, your obsession with this is beyond any rational explanation. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]