User talk:Wyss/a1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Reverting pages 2 Adlai E. Stevenson High School 3 Blunsdon United 4 Sollog 5 HYP 6 Languages 7 WikiBreak 8 cranky 9 Cranky is jargon for Not Peer-Reviewed 10 afu rfc 11 URLs 12 Speedy deletions 13 'propcruft'? 14 Emolination 15 Penkyamp 16 Andrew Villeneuve 17 "Fork" 18 FoolFind 19 Wyss and qualifications 20 Joshua Claybourn 21 Fishy kettles 22 while making this archive...

[edit] Reverting pages

Wyss, you say apropos of John P. Ellis: Numerology and fortune telling are both well-known scams, and people who fall for scams are victims. At last! I was starting to think I was alone in a nuthouse here.

Right then, here is the info that you want and deserve. Use it judiciously; keep up the good work! -- Hoary 11:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adlai E. Stevenson High School

I guess being supported because of technicality is better than no support.

So thank you.

[edit] Blunsdon United

Good, subtle edits that demonstrate why collaboration works so well here; such things tend to slip through the cracks for any single editor. I agree with all of them. JRM 08:43, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

It's the sort of article that can help make wiki readable and truly rewarding.

Couldn't agree more. The big articles will "write themselves", it's these sorts of little gems that embody the true spirit of Wikipedia. You wouldn't just not find this in the Britannica, you'd never find this anywhere else. It makes you realize the sort of potential Wikipedia has—if it can do this for the microscopic Blunsdon United, it can do anything. Ah, WikiDreams... :-) JRM 21:15, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog

I've posted a reply on my talk page. Cheers, --MarkSweep 04:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merci beacoup. Voici un WikiThanks: And I won't mangle the French language by attempting to construct a more detailed response... Are you sure you'd not rather talk in German? I'm considerably less bad at that. :-) JRM 02:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. What's the procedure for handing those out, by the way? You deserve some recognition yourself. --MarkSweep 05:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ditto that. Thanks. You should award yourself one too. Gamaliel 07:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moi aussi, je te remercie mille fois pour ce joli «barnstar». Chouette ! -- rosbif Hoary 06:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) PS « Étoile de grange », c'est ça ! J'avais oublié. -- vieillard

Wyss if you think I'm a sock (though I can't think why from the edits I've made), please email me at cchunder AT yahoo.co.uk and I will supply you with links and info to demonstrate otherwise. --Cchunder 14:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try visiting my site [1] and play a game of Sollog Lotto or Line of Death to see where I'm coming from :) --Cchunder 15:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see Wyss is behaving exactly the same myopic way to CChunder as he is now doing to me. You only have to look at the many posts made by CC on alt.prophecies.nostradamus to know he's telling the truth. The Number 17:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would, but a certain person will probably whine about the content (despite it being a parody) and it will take me five minutes to sign up for a new page. It's not a major deal but I'd prefer not to give him the satisfaction. Feel free to use any of the info though. --Cchunder 16:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ok, stupid question, was my information not acceptable in that spot, i feel that his misses are notable as much as his successes, while yes i understand that it might be perceived as "sollog bashing" which i do on usenet, but the misses are as important as his successes -xinterupt ip addy poster

Thanks for the note, Wyss. Being a new Wikipedian since Sollog was mentioned on /. , I'm sure I'll stumble a few times as I learn the ropes and hone my investigative skills. My ego will take the bruising just fine and I'll learn some lessons in the process. :-)

(By the bye, what's the etiquette for User_talk pages? Does one answer on the user_talk page where a comment was left and expect people to check back, or leave a note on their talk page (like this) so they're sure to get the reply? I've seen both, so I'm guessing it's context dependent and varies by preference.) — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you mean to blank the Talk:Sollog page?--Clipdude 03:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] HYP

May I ask you to please read the evidence that I have posted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP, follow and read some of the links that Google brings up, and consider whether afterwords you still want to delete the article? Thank you. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:03, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

You speak French, and you have German-speaking cousins. Hmmm. Are you Swiss or Luxembourgian, by any chance? Or just an immigrated American? Or just a Frenchmen versed in languages? Or just someone who prefers to remain fully anonymous? :-) Inquiring minds need to know!

And thanks for the barnstar, of course. And thank you for your friendly insistence at having the sock puppet POV accurately represented as well. :-) JRM 14:00, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

[edit] WikiBreak

Hi; just a quick note to inform you I'm takin a break from the wiki for a while. Could you do me a favour and keep my page on your watchlist, to check for and revert any vandalism? Multiple people are probably watching it, but I'd like to make more or less sure. I've only had one "defacing" so far and that was consensual :-), but just in case, with all the Sollog nonsense going on. JRM 11:10, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

[edit] cranky

Can you please explain, why do you say, the critique of the finnougric theory page is cranky? Did you read it? You don't like something in that? Do you have arguments? Thanks. Antifinnugor 20:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cranky is jargon for Not Peer-Reviewed

Antifinnugor, I voted to delete because the article appears to be original research without sufficient peer-review. The references seem circular, the discussion doesn't appear to be linguistically rigorous or detached and there seems to be some sort of political agenda hidden between the lines. I'd need to see more scholarly references on this before voting to keep it. Please remember that my opinion is just one vote. If sufficient wikipedians think the article should stay, it will! Don't hesitate to ask me more questions if you like. Wyss 21:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. However, your assumption is not correct. Yes, there is a political agenda since 150 years in these groups, and therefore it makes sense to check, what is behind these (nonsense) groups. I list the references, I used, especially important is Dr. Marácz's article about the finno ugric theory and its method. I am just a linguistically interested person. If I were you, I would reconsider my decision after having read throughoutly the cited resources. Thanks, Antifinnugor 09:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The references are not convincing.

Have you read them? What is your problem with them? Antifinnugor 18:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, your characterization of any relationship as nonsense is generally problematic,

I nowhere say, that any relationship is nonsense. Or can you show, where do I say that? The relationship is clearly there due to agglutination. The problem is the creation of these minigroups (fu/u), that are very little related, except of agglutination. Don't you see this? Antifinnugor 18:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

and your strong remark affirming that there is a political agenda confirms that the motives behind this article are not really related to linguistic science. Wiki is not a political forum. Wyss 13:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a political forum, but these minigroups were created for political reasons, and this must be mentioned in an encyclopedia, that deserves its name. Dont you think so? Antifinnugor 18:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

17 Dec

...there is a political agenda since 150 years in these groups, and therefore it makes sense to check, what is behind these (nonsense) groups.

Here you plainly said there's a political agenda... and then said the sub-groups are nonsense (you asked me to point out where you used the word nonsense).

I wrote in a private discussion, not on the page. Antifinnugor 08:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Here, Antifinnugor seems to assert that anything he says in a "private discussion" is insignificant. Wyss 16:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have you read them? What is your problem with them?

While the linked reference's writing style is educated and elaborate, it isn't scientifically rigorous or complete and is suspiciously sentimental.

Not at all, sorry. Antifinnugor 08:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Antifinnugor makes no attempt to show that the reference is scientifically rigorous and not influenced by sentiment. Wyss 16:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...The problem is the creation of these minigroups (fu/u), that are very little related, except of agglutination. Don't you see this?

No, I think they're certainly related, but there are obviously problems with the classifications.

...but these minigroups were created for political reasons, and this must be mentioned in an encyclopedia, that deserves its name. Dont you think so?

Unfortunately that sort of rhetoric is too shrill for me and smacks more of politics than observation, along with a persistant lack of acceptance of the wiki process.

Summarized: You believe, that if for whatever reason wrong, erroneous language groups are created, and put into articles, books, they are righteous, and you refuse even to put information about these groups into the wikipedia, that clearly show, how erroneous these are. You do not wish even discussion or critic about these erroneous groups in the wikipedia, and certainly not correction. Sad. Antifinnugor 08:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This is a classic example of a one-topic wiki user attempting to assert a politically-driven PoV through emotional appeal.

RFC time? dab (ᛏ) 21:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well, we'll have to dig up the most blatantly policy-violating edits, I suppose the policies applying would be mostly "no personal attacks" and "cite your sources". But I am afraid the case is mostly do to stubbornness and complete inability to engage in a discussion or even listen to people, and I am afraid we have no policy requiring a minimal level of intelligence. dab (ᛏ) 09:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, if you want to get involved, please see my talk page for a beginning. Dbenbenn 00:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AHA. Antifinnugor 17:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Here, Antifinnugor seems to comment on his "discovery" of a conspiracy against his political PoV re a linguistic article. Wyss 18:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] afu rfc

I'm not familiar with his edits, only the unscientific slant to the article and his completely political perspective on a linguistic topic. The basic policy violation (it seems to me) is that he's oblivious to the concept of consensus editing, not to mention civil discussion. Wyss 00:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss, these are general accusations, without any concrete point. That's the problem with you. If you tell me concretely, what you do not like, then I can act, but what to do with general points like "unscientific slant"? For some days you wrote, you believe, I write my own theories and now this. Strange. I were happy with "Consensus editing" but what I saw here is that mustafa&hipo delete ANYTHING I add. Antifinnugor 17:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antifinnugor, these are not accusations at all, and your characterization of them as such is one of the reasons why you may be having trouble adapting to the wiki process of writing a balanced article. Regarding the weakness of the references, it's your responsibility to provide convincing, scientifically rigorous linguistic references. Do it, and I might change my mind. Wyss 18:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] URLs

Heya, note that [http://foo http://foo] is equal to http://foo, ie the bare link. Thanks for the article by the way, though the link isn't working for me right now (can't connect). --fvw* 00:50, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletions

I don't want to discuss it, positively or otherwise. The policy is clear. The policies on vandalism are very carefully written. There's a world of difference between "spam" and "an advertisement". The latter should be deleted through VfD, as is noted in the deletion policy. Continually demanding to have articles speedied when they don't meet the criteria is not constructive. If you want the policy changed, you should make a proposal.Dr Zen 00:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• If you don't want to discuss it, why bring it up?

• The definition of vandalism in the criteria clearly mentions bad-faith hoaxes, pranks and spam. Further, my take on the definition of spam in the criteria would include a bad-faith ad with hyped language and little or no other useful content.

• I'm not "demanding" anything "continually", and based on the tone of your remarks and incompleteness of your argument, with all due respect I think you're pushing some other agenda here.

• If you want the policy changed (or the language altered to ensure that it fits only your interpretation), you should make a proposal. Wyss 13:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 'propcruft'?

I may regret asking, but ... 'propcruft'?

Anyways, I'm disheartened; it seems like too many VfD voters are responding to the unreasonable stance of "If we want it, it must belong on Wikipedia!" by developing the equally unreasonable reflex of "If they want it, it must not belong on Wikipedia." I am all for keeping popular culture in its place and not letting it grow out of control, but people are nominating articles where they have no idea what the subject's significance is, assuming that it must be "super minor fan trivia" because they don't know anything about it (and won't click any links to get any idea.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There could well be some truth in that last complaint, but it was I who nominated this article, I've lived in Japan for quite a long time, and I do have some knowledge of what Gundam is. I've a much dimmer idea of what American TV series are, and that's one reason why I nominate American TV fancruft less often. (Another reason is that the titles are much less conspicuous.) Meanwhile, it seems to me that the desire for more "information" among fans of Gundam, etc. etc., is near-insatiable. People who want this degree of fancruft should be prepared to go elsewhere to get it. I believe that Wiki software is open source; an organization of Gundammologists is welcome to set up its own Gundamwiki somewhere. Meanwhile, I share the fears of "Average Earthman": that we'll hear "'Wikipedia' -- oh, right, that's the giant fansite, isn't it? Er, you're suggesting I take seriously what it says about organic chemistry?" -- Hoary 02:14, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

You know, I like anime :) but don't think each aspect of its cruft, however beloved by me, belongs in a dedicated wiki article and I totally agree with your Average Earthman remark... Wyss 16:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that fan stuff is prone to spread out of proportion to its influence and needs to be reined in. I disagree that the answer is to shoot all of it indiscriminately on sight for trespassing, and yet that's effectively what some people are doing, saying 'Well, I don't understand anything about it except that it's something fannish, but that's all I need to know to know that it's trivial fancruft.' I mean, sports is all Greek to me, and I think it's profoundly overrated, but I don't look at the article for Cal Ripken and say "Well, I don't know why he's any more important than any other sports player, therefore, he's just trivia, let's delete this article." I also think the fear that Wikipedia will lose credibility for its scholarly articles if it has too many fannish articles is overrated -- is anyone going to assume "Well, this article on organic chemistry was obviously edited by the same people who thought Blaise Zambini needed his own article, therefore it must be junk"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think mentioning this in the main article would be helpful and sufficient coverage. Wyss 20:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... I guess neither I nor my vote to merge the Neutron Stampeder to a mention into some main article are making ourselves clear. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So merge it! My only issue is the idea of a separate article. Wyss 20:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Emolination

Wyss, I'm temporarily using an unfamiliar computer and software. Thus it is that the (monster) VfD page causes the browser to crash. I'll see if I can install a newer and more stable replacement, but as it is I stuck a VfD on the top of Lord emo and wrote why, but now can't add that to the VfD page. If you happen to see this before I've fiddled with my browser, would you mind adding it for me? (Of course you'd then be most welcome to vote against it!) Incidentally, please don't email me for the next few days: till Jan 4 or so I shan't see any mail. Thanks. Hoary 05:55, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

[edit] Penkyamp

You provided some feedback on VfD|Pengyam. Could you also give some on the related article (created by the same author): VfD/Penkyamp? Thanks. --Menchi 01:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"penkyamp" could be a general noun

• Keep: Fellow Wikipedians, please pause and think for a second: do you know the exact origin and meaning of "penkyamp" in the Cantonese language? Proper nouns(let's have no doubt that "Penkyamp" is indeed a proper name for the orthography), have varying degrees of SPECIFICITY. The fact that the name "penkyamp" does not automatically lead us to the origin of such system doesn't mean that such system wasn't in use under different names. Let's see: "penkyamp" as a GENERAL NOUN is inspired by Mandarin "pinyin", which is itself both a proper name for a system and a general noun designating "phonetic script". As a result, "penkyamp" as a general noun has been in use among the Cantonese referring to any phonetic script since at least the birth of the Mandarin Pinyin. And "Penkyamp" as a proper noun for a specific system might not be in place well after this system was in use for many years, only until it was introduced to us as such. What if on-line records before 2003 has been mostly erased?

Besides, the article started under the entry Cantonese Romanization instead of Penkyamp. Maybe back then "Penkyamp" wasn't finalized as its only proper name. It could be "Lomazi" or "Zeuyamp". At least it's nothing as specific as "Jyutpin" (a name that is hightly stylized and specified as a "PINyin"--note: not a Cantonese pronunciation--- of the "Jyut"(Guangdong)-- nothing can get as specific as this, which will garantee to trace back to its origin as an officially sponsored scheme). But "penkyamp" is not as specific as this. It means "phonetic script", is spelled as is pronounced in Cantonese, and is in circulation among the Cantonese thanks to the already existing Mandarin "Pinyin". I urge you to think twice about our obsession with the specificity of the proper name of the entry: what you call "Penkyamp" is actually of secondary relevance. The question is, what kind of usage, or systems were in existence before this name was finalized, on Wikipedia?

• This user (who forgot to sign) has apparently confused the difference between a Chinese noun and an encyclopedia article...? Wyss 21:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Wyss, would you also say that I have apparently confused the difference between the Chinese noun pinyin and the encyclopedia article Pinyin? Sorry Wyss, would you also say that I have apparently confused the difference between the Chinese noun pinyin and the encyclopedia article Pinyin? Hope this is not too hard to understand. Dunshi (on 4 Jan 2005)

Well I apologize if I mistook you for using sarcasm. But I'd like to know what possible confusion I might have made re: penkyamp and Penkyamp, if there is no confusion in our common understanding between pinyin and Pinyin. Maybe Chinese is a grossly uncodified language. But I don't expect it to conform to English conventions anytime soon. Dunshi (on 4 Jan 2005)

• Here, the user is apparently drawing some connection between the comparative codification of English and Chinese as relating to the appropriateness of the article for Wikipedia...? Wyss 22:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Villeneuve

Sorry to trouble you Wyss, but I am one of the pesky people that lobby so you might rethink a deletion, in this case of the Villeneueve article deletion of Villeneuve's page. I have researched the matter, and discovered he is a significant player in defeating tax cut initiatives in Washington state. He has been quoted in the Seattle Post Intelligencer on the subject, and seems to have dozens of references in Google. Further, it does seem illogical to have such a long entry on the Permanent Defense, which is clearly notable and no mention of its founder who played such an instrumental role in defeating a statewide initiative that would have introduce 16000 slot machines to the state. He has been quoted in the as a spokesman, he has his own group, he defeated a well funded initiative. I don't much like his politics, but he's certainly prominent or notable. I suspect there's more to this proposed deletion than meets the eye. I believe there should be more thought given to the matter. Libertas

I definitely think the Tim guy and his opponent Villeneuve are notable, however odious one finds either of them to be. My argument is that these ballot intitiatives seem to be rapidly rising in significance.

People in the mainstream parties (like Radicalsubversiv) don't like it because direct citizens' power make them less relevant. I gather the Republicans don't much like the Tim guy and don't much support him either.

So yes, to answer your question I think there are partisan motivations to the deletion proposal (although I have no idea about those voting). Radicalsubversiv has a clear motivation to disparage Villeneuve and is not acting neutrally in my view, and is not capable of doing so on an issue so close to home.

I agree with your definition of notability btw, I think he is a leader of an influential political leader, positioning himself as a mainline opponent to the Tim guy and his tax cut plans. It's clear that they'll both grow in notability.

Would he get an entry in Britannica? Probably not, but if that was the test there'd be huge chunks of Wikipedia deleted and I think Wikipedia should be more inclusive and democratic than that. Libertas

Libertas is lying -- I don't know how else to put it. She is upset with me over some unrelated disputes (Ron Paul, Soviet Union, etc.), and decided to wage a campaign against this VfD. She first accused me of trying to delete the page because I was more radical than Villeneuve, and then changed tacks and accused me of trying to delete it for being less radical. In reality, I have no partisan beef, with Villeneuve whatsoever, nor any desire to disparage him. E-mail him and ask if you don't believe me. I listed the article entirely because I don't believe it to be notable. To the best of my knowledge, no one else voting in the article has any particular involvement or knowledge of WA state politics, so I'd doubt any of them have partisan motivations either. Vote however you feel appropriate, but please don't feed the trolls. RadicalSubversiv E 00:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I won't bother dealing with Radicalsubversiv's latest like personal attack (calling people liars is pretty personal I think), he clearly has problems though. I wish he'd lighten up and have some fun :-)

Couldn't agree more with you about President Reagan, he was much more liberal on social issues than he was and is painted, he couldn't abide racial prejudice or sexism or any of that. He had such a clear vision about how to put pressure on the Soviets. He talked about what he was going to do in the 60's and then did it in the '80's and it worked. Smart guy. Thanks for your best wishes and I send similar wishes... Libertas

[edit] "Fork"

You have been repeatedly using the word "fork" on VFD, apparently in a way that is unfamiliar to me. Clearly these are not forks off of other Wikipedia articles, so what do you have in mind? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:17, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• These have all been direct PoV forks from other WP articles. If you could give me a specific example, I'll be happy to share with you why I called it a fork. Wyss 11:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FoolFind

Hi, thanks for voting in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/FoolFind, but you forgot to sign your vote! --foobaz·✐ 03:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wyss and qualifications

I see my comment - a very sensible comment - has been reverted. Wyss: I suggest you look at the message, not the Messenger. You seem to think qualifications makes someone clever, intelligent, worth listening to.

OK, I have a load of qualifications - will you now listen?      
Oh no, this will be reverted.   
 +  
 + Plus this page now has a bug: 
 +  
 + From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 
 + A database query syntax error has occurred

[snip]

• This seems incoherent to me. It seems to relate to the Sollog article. Where have I said that "qualifications" make "someone clever, intelligent, worth listening to"...? (I never said anything like that, but the poster has probably misinterpreted the text on my user page). I have (to my knowledge) never reverted any posting by this contributor, but I have reverted much vandalism by John P. Ennis, so perhaps this poster is him and he's muddled his sockpuppet histories. Wyss 00:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I quote: "If you're academically qualified as an expert on the subject you can even lecture me "

'nuff said.

• And you said, "makes someone clever, intelligent, worth listening to", I never said that. I wrote (a bit tongue in cheek) you could lecture me if you have academic qualifications. Cite 'em. Wyss 01:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pointless. If I did you'd say they were fake. If I proved otherwise you'd say they weren't mine. You'd then say I wasn't in the UK. You'd then say I was Ennis.

• This circular dialog is typical of Ennis. He evades all attempts at rational communication and exchange, then accuses others of being evasive. Wyss 05:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In your mind, Wyss, Cardinal Chunder was Ennis when even the most casual investigation would have shown you how stupid you were behaving. Your description of Ennis fits you, BTW but as I am not the same as you I'll withold accusations.

The Number 17:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're behaving like a troll :) Wyss 20:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Claybourn

I think you should reconsider your vote on the Joshua Claybourn entry here: [2]. From from being a blog ad, Claybourn is one of the most notable writers in the Christian community. He's been published in nearly every major Christian magazine and is frequently published in newspapers. He also happens to run a popular weblog. You should change your vote to "Keep"

Anonymously posted by 68.20.131.2 (Wyss 03:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC))

The article offers no evidence that he's...

• ...one of the most notable writers in the Christian community
• He's been published in nearly every major Christian magazine
• ...is frequently published in newspapers..

As for running a popular weblog, use of the word "popular" could be misleading. There are tens of thousands of blogs and thousands claim to be popular on some level. Wyss 05:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fishy kettles

By "a whole other kettle of fish" I didn't mean to endorse our special friend's conceit of getting a "full retraction" out of you, just that we'd be moving from one kettle (ignoring impotent ranting) to a whole different kettle (maybe thinking about caring). I'm not sure that you read it that way, but from the indent it looks like you were answering me rather than them, so I clarify just in case.

I do find it interesting that Ennis has been quiet during the time that this "new" friend has been posting. I'm still unsure it's Ennis, but I'm starting to think the single-mindedness is awfully familiar...  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:35, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I totally read it that way and darn it, I hesitated for a moment over that indent and am going to change it now, I intended my response as in tandem with yours, to OSF.

I think it's him, btw. The thought process and syntax seem the same, just calmer for now. Wyss 09:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yup. A small piece of evidence: a similar inability to grasp virtually any VP markup -- it may be easier than HTML, but his site reveals that he has to resort to MS Turd for the latter. And another: he does seem able to dole out would-be persuasive links in profusion; a newcomer to this nonsubject would need some time to work her way around these, but of course our one-man religion has a superb memory for anything that might conceivably be interpreted as taking him seriously. Of course the single-mindedness is evident even from the list of contributions. -- Hoary 10:37, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

For the record: I believe this is either John or an interested troll with too much spare time on his hands — correction, a different troll with too much spare time on his hands... Given that the standard vandalism and contentless ranting by "TOH members" suddenly stopped, only to be replaced by these new exploits, I think it's fairly safe to say that John has mastered the finer arts of trolling. His usual shouting isn't going to help him here, and he knows it. Dead giveaways: he can't resist either speaking of Sollog in the usual deferential tone no sane person would use, or the temptation of threatening people with lawsuits. As always, don't feed the trolls. Respond only to claims that can be verified; ignore the rest of the contentless ranting and personal attacks, and never answer questions twice, in the patient tone reserved for actual people. If you see someone doing it, just ignore it, or educate that person on their talk page why it's probably not going to do any good. Assuming good faith still applies, and it's fairly easy to do so: no incarnation of John I've seen so far didn't manage to blow any such assumptions to hell and high water on at most their second post. JRM 18:21, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

You people are so funny - in a naive sort of way.

I'll deal with your points, politely.

"I do find it interesting that Ennis has been quiet during the time that this "new" friend has been posting."

Comment: You have no proof that Ennis ever posted or that he ever posted alone. Still, letting that pass.....I suggest that a) he is watching this with glee and/or b) he has decided to ignore you until he has something substantive to say/do. This could be another ludricuous TOH diktat that you're all guilty of crimes etc. It could be an alleged lawsuit. It could be hackers disrupting your database.

"I think it's him, btw. The thought process and syntax seem the same, just calmer for now."

Comment: that shows more about your stupidity/naivety than Sollog/Ennis's skills in duplicity, I am afraid. Let's go through some basic differences - remember to agree with the differences and trumpet the differences as proof I am Sollog.... All my posts have English, not American spelling. I have given very specific examples of things in England eg. the Daily Mail extract. Other people in England (Lyndhurst is in England) have posted too - naturally they're all Sollog. (Ha!) I, unfortunately make typing mistakes. You'll never see those typing mistakes in Sollog(ite) postings. I type in lower case. I don't threaten.

"And another: he does seem able to dole out would-be persuasive links in profusion; a newcomer to this nonsubject would need some time to work her way around these"

Comment: Unfortunately, that proves nothing except I am not a newcomer. Of course you may have noticed that the links are often links from England, which supports my knowledge of Sollog in England as well as elsewhere. I am, indeed, not a newcomer. I have 'known' Sollog i.e. been aware of his activities, for 5 years.

"For the record: I believe this is either John or an interested troll with too much spare time on his hands — correction, a different troll with too much spare time on his hands..."

Comment: I do have too much spare time, yes I'll grant you that but then the same could be said about Wiki people. I am not a troll, however as I contribute useful information and stand up for myself against the rather pathetic posts by people who seem unable to consider that there may be people interested in Sollog without necessarily being anti-him.

"Dead giveaways: he can't resist either speaking of Sollog in the usual deferential tone no sane person would use, or the temptation of threatening people with lawsuits."

Comment: Initially I laughed at that but on second read, it seemed rather sad. Why is it that Wiki people accept it when co-Editors lie? What is it - a kind of 'group security' thing whereby you cannot criticise or correct each other? I have never threatened people with lawsuits - I have no need. No-one is attacking me - they just sneer at someone they think is me i.e. Ennis. Plus the UK is not nearly as litigious as the US - we don't sue McDonalds for making us fat, for example. You say I speak of Sollog in a deferential tone. Maybe you missed my lengthy posts about Sollog(ites) faking email headers, posting pornorgraphy etc? Maybe you missed my posts about David Patrick and how Sollog(ites) drove him away?

I have no reason to be deferential to Sollog/Ennis.

You spend so much time insisting you're in the UK when the truth is, if you really were, it seems to me you'd tell us all to sod off if we had a problem believing you. Also, Britain is rather more litigous than the US in terms of such things as libel law and whatnot, your syntax is American with a few Brit spellings tossed in and your conversation is as circular and devoid of content as his is so I have my doubts about you. Anyway if by some wild fluke you're not Ennis, he's queered the pitch for any of his supporters on this page through his sockpuppetry and vandalism. So I'll assume you're Ennis until better evidence otherwise comes along. Call my take sad or whatever, Ennis is the sadness, a pathetic, play-acting spammer who can't even post-shadow an earthquake without being laughed off the screen and let's not even talk about Picasso. Meantime I suggest you quit filling my talk page with screed and consider contributing something verfiable and on-topic about an article. Wyss 20:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wiki editors try to correct inaccuracies and keep the pages clear of spam etc. You have no idea about UK libel laws so your statement is just plain wrong. 'American syntax' sooo funny. You ignored all my points - but then you would (as Mandy Rice Davies once said) wouldn't you. Yoiur take is sad, wrong, stupid and well....thank goodness for archives. If you ever say anything sensible I'll just bring all this up and remind people of your rather low level of comprehension. You say Ennis is the sadness. Say whatever you like about him - you're probably right in most of it. But there's room for more than one saddo and your persistent belief I am Ennis is just very very stupid. Oh and I have been logged out AGAIN by a crash so I cannot be bothered to log in again. 81.152.229.209 23:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"'American syntax' sooo funny" is, in itself, almost funny. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This too was almost funny: ".... I am largely incapable of creative or original thought" but then I realised it explained so much of your behaviour. The Number 23:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The irony is that Ennis is incapable of impersonating a normal person. In polite terms, his baseline has a substantial offset. -Ashley Pomeroy 09:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Ennis impersonated a 'normal' person, how would you know? The Number 02:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The Number, the more agitated you become, the more you sound like Ennis. The topic of the article is Sollog/Ennis. If you keep on talking about yourself, I'll take it as a tacit assertion you're him. Wyss 05:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you please cease the snide remarks directed towards The Number? Until he does something bannable, he has the right to post and your comments towards him only give him an excuse to whine and complain that he is mistreated. And, frankly, they are not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. If you stop needling him, he really won't have anything left to talk about. Gamaliel 18:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree entirely (but don't worry :) Anyway, get someone's emotions going and the truth inevitably starts to slip out, as it has in the past. To put it politely, in my opinion The Number has little other than disinformation and distraction to contribute. Wyss 02:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Note, The Number "bolded" some of my comments in order to distort my attitude and personality. I reverted it. Wyss 03:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still accusing eh Wyss? The Number 02:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Accusing? Hardly. I notice that you can't resist attempts to create confrontation wherever possible, however. Wyss 03:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It must be something in the tea that Wiki people drink. How can even make a slight telling off be tranformed into a dig at me? Amazing. To say - as you did - that if people stop needling me I won't have anything left to talk about makes me out as being just an empty-head - which I regard as insulting. I shall bring your comment to the attention of the fair-minded Gamaliel. Oh.....

• Here, The Number complains to be insulted even by Gamaliel's well-intentioned effort to spread around a bit of wikicivility. Sigh. Wyss 02:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Here, Wyss yet again posts a message of distraction. I regard someone saying I have nothing to talk about as offensive. The Number 02:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yet again, The Number accuses others of using his own tactics. Wyss 03:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to remind you I have contributed the following:

a. Drawing attention to the UK discussion group on Sollog and the contents therein b. Continually saying that there are UK people - not Ennis - who post here about Sollog and then give up when people accuse them of being Ennis and thus liars, cheats etc. c. Informed you all about David Patrick as an example of the pressure Ennis brings on to people d. Informed you about the Guardian article e. Informed you about the Ionescu letter in which PART of the letter seems to support Sollog f. Informed you about 'the curse' which was an early example of the Ennis wrath g. Informed you about fake email headers and the 'porn distribution' story

That's seven serious contributions to the discussion. What serious points have others contributed within, say, the last 10 days?

Such a pity that you cannot even defend Wikipedia:Civility without getting in a swipe at me.

The Number 21:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If your behavior was above reproach, you might have a point here. You would do better to work on your own behavior before you constantly harp on others. Gamaliel 23:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Since Ennis isn't much of a serious topic (aside from his history of harassment and his arrest by the secret service), I'd say there isn't much more "serious" material to contribute. It seems to me that The Number is intimately familiar with Ennis btw. Wyss 02:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Note, The Number "bolded" some of my comments in order to distort my attitude and personality. I reverted it. Wyss 03:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still accusing Wyss? The Number 02:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As above, hardly. Why do you care so much? Why don't you show credibility by refraining from personal attacks, cries of victimization and so on? Wyss 03:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see again you have adopted a censuring tone. I shan't respond. Neither will I respond to your comments on the Sollog/Ennis page where - yet again - you criticise me for making 'needlessly provocative comments'. I am following the sensible advice given by JRM and will 'ignore the rest' . I would mention, though, that above I have listed seven serious contributions and I would have done the 'Jesus is not God' analysis that Ashley has done but everytime I mention Ennis people say I am writing about Ennis because I am Ennis. Oh well. The Number 01:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) (It took so long to do this owing to server problems that by the time it saved, my ID had gone)The Number 01:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, your eagerness to drive home the points doesn't reflect well on you. You're better than this, Wyss. Don't let it waste your time and energy.

You probably misunderstood what I was doing. Wyss 02:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When mr. Number posts things relevant the the article, discuss these and only these, and ignore the rest. Refrain from making accusations yourself. I think everyone has seen enough of this discussion to draw their own conclusions by now.

No, information out of context is of little use. I do agree that most people who've been reading these threads are probably drawing conclusions not too far from my own. Besides, it's all rather obvious by now. Wyss 02:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'All rather obvious by now' - still accusing Wyss? The Number 02:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Number, I'd like to suggest you follow the same advice. Don't respond to perceived personal attacks, and certainly not with personal attacks of your own. This vicious circle will get us nowhere. No matter how unfairly you think you're being treated, getting in a huff about it is not likely to help matters. Accusing people of hypocrisy for mentioning Wikipedia:Civility is also not the best way to promote a healthy atmosphere. Civility is intended to clear the air, not to be used as a bludgeoning stick for people who supposedly don't honor it. There is no need for either side to point out why they're right and the others are wrong. JRM 22:24, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I am not really in a huff - I just get tired of it. To constantly be accuse dof being a 'hated figure' weakens anything I have to say. But I am following your advice and moving on... The Number 01:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Everyone, where possible, please try to avoid using my talk page for making statements to contributors other than me, thanks :) Wyss 02:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see your 1984 approach now sees quoting Wikipedia policy as 'vandalism'. The Number 04:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way you spammed it onto my page was vandalism. Readers are invited to see for themselves in the page history. Wyss 04:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I've changed my mind, Wyss; I do think he's Ennis. The recent context-lite Talk page spamming was the clincher. The total lack of understanding of Talk page thread-formatting was a big red flag, too.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:45, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] while making this archive...

Heya, getting a head start on the spring clean I see. I think you'll want to reconsider your archive naming though, User talk:Wyss a1 is the talk page for User:Wyss a1 (who doesn't exist yet, but still you should stay in your own user space). Use subpages instead for archives: Put them in User talk:Wyss/a1 for example (my personal archiving location of choice is User:username/TalkArchive/number (i.e. in the user instead of the user_talk namespace), but that's just pedantry). User talk:Wyss2 should be tagged for deletion too I think. --fvw* 23:40, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)