Wikipedia's date articles, such as December 27 are where event anniversaries in Wikipedia articles can be listed. I always list the articles I work on in the date articles, even for minor events. It seems that any topic notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia is notable enough for listing on those date articles. At least, so I thought...

But, see here, here, and here. I'm not sure why the "Andy" account reverted me. I think we know why JohnnyB256 did so. I think Will BeBack reverted because I mentioned a subject that he is apparently still sore about in the AfD for the Robertson lawsuit article which Weiss' sock is trying to get deleted.

Again, I'm really surprised that editors would edit war over simply listing an event in one of the date articles. I thought I had seen everything.

a) They are probably right
b) Why do you care?
c) Why are you bringing this here?
d) Why should we care?
e) What are you creating marginally notable articles relating to Gary Weiss?

a) If there were set rules and they were following them, then they would be right.
b) The date lists are used for articles for the "On this day..." listing on the main page. I like to see the articles I spend time improving get listed on the main page.
c) I don't think I've ever seen a discussion on the date pages in WR
d) That's for you guys to decide
e) Because after I saw this edit, I searched InfoTrac to see if there really were enough sources to decide if that subject was notable or not. I found a surprising number of sources about that lawsuit, so I decided to write an article on it. The article I wrote is NPOV, giving both sides equally.

a) On wikipedia might is generally right - but common sense and proportionality would probably count against you too
b) Ah, vanity. Common failing about here.
c) Nope, I'd guess there might be a reason for that.
d) You'd not bring it here unless you think we should care
e) Wikipedia is an unfit medium for having contentious articles involving living people. Even if you happen to dislike those living people.

Lol, Harrods… What's the matter Gary, Are You Being Served?

"Rules"?? What "rules"??

You're playing with fire by putting anything in on-this-day articles that someone
as crazy as Will Beback or Gary Weiss might have an interest in. They ARE the rules,
they make the rules. Simply by dint of being the craziest bastards on the wiki.

As soon as Doc Glasgow realizes how profoundly his efforts on WP are wasted by
people like Master McWhiney, he will have very little trouble quitting and not going back.

There is no lasting reward for playing the wiki-game well. Jimbo will not appreciate
your efforts, Cla. Sue Gardner will not appreciate your efforts. No one at WMF will
even notice that you existed. Just another unimportant name on the edit histories.

A few teenage admins might like you--are they valid "friends"? Can you depend on them?
No, of course not.

Welcome to the ranks of the exploited.

I think you are correct.

Personally, I think the date articles should be for "big picture" stuff only. If everything that has an article or needs an article on WP was also represented on the date articles, they'd be unimaginably long.

Yeah, I noticed Kingturtle's strategy to distribute events by subject area (cf. the year articles!) was hastily nuked from orbit.

I'm not clear why Cla68 started a thread about dates... that's rather a minor issue in my view. I've went on record here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=334291616

that I think there's a potential issue.

And now JohnnyB256 has been indef-blocked.....


On a lighter note, Wikipedia:WikiProjectDays of the year says the entries on day articles should follow WP:DOY, which has it own notability guidelines, saying to include "[only] Important verdicts and court decisions". Turns out that JohnnyB256 was correct about removing the non-notable entry

Gary and/or his meatpuppets (ironic, coming from a falsely David Gerard dubbed meatpuppet for Pat Byrne, which I am mosdef not) are now going at Chuck Ainsworth, a most rightheous dude if there ever was one on the WP, as a "grudge" focker.

Oh the irony.

Gary acted out the scores of direct grudges, that turned to be without merit in retrospect:

- had BLP's of at least 2 journalists that either successfully competed with him for awards or did pieces on the opposite angle of NSS deleted or nominated for deletion

- for at least 6 months before Byrne or any of his direct associates or indirect sympathisizers, or just folks who become schooled on the NSS issue, ad ever heard of him, Gary spent a lot of time injecting only negatively slanted information into Byrne and his company's articles on WP and deleted positively slanted pieces.

- edited Julian Robertson's BLP negatively

- worked tirelessly to have Cla68's RFA nuked, then lately under his latest banned WP effort, led a campaign of menace (lol) to turd up Cla68's Arb punchbowl.

- had the article for a Robertson related issue nom for deletion (I think it was a scholarship named after Robertson)

Cla68 doesn't create and/or delete articles using slanted, one-sided editorial judgement. For years he's shown he places material with sources form all "sides" of the issues in the articles he works on, that one included. That's what these guys hate about him.

Absolutely. However, as can be seen now, asking the humans to interact civilly in the construction of such a "big picture" would be Yet Another Fantastic Waste Of Resources (YAFWOR). It would be far, far, better if date articles -- or more generally, any kind of index article -- were completely machine generated. "Big Picture" can be assessed via page-rank like algorithms.

Chris Faille is now back on the Weiss horse on WP about this issue. Chris is a friend of Gary, is another ex-journalist of sorts. He wrote for a hedge fund newsletter (which soley used hedge fund managers as "sources" unilaterally) put out by a Reuters parent, which he felt obliged to disclose on WP after I pointed this out to him in 2007.

Very chummy with David Rocker.

Not so much with Byrne, lol.

Chris has been a net positive to WP in his editing history, but let's keep the heavily biased (both pro/con) out of the Weiss/Byrne wars. Christofurio should be Weiss/Byrne topic banned.

Ok, I see now that Faille has been blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Christofurio


My interest is fully piqued now. Unless Faille has been sharing his account with Weiss (not unfathomable), please let's hear how Faille has been socking.....his furio editing is very infrequent so it's not surprising, but now wondering which socks are Faille's...

I've no idea either, but I've just put the question to Seddon, so we'll see what he says ....

We know that Christofurio is not Gary Weiss. However we also know that they are old friends. I bet Christofurio gave Weiss the keys for the weekend, and Weiss went and wrapped that account around a tree.

Well, that means that the primary account holder of the Christofurio account can no longer edit Wikipedia without being banned on sight. Checking the contribution history, however, he didn't appear to be that active lately, so he might not mind that much.

Update: He has been unblocked.

Christofurio is not Mantanmoreland. None of the checkuser stuff fits, which is all I'll say. He may indeed have been canvassed, but that's about it really. The admin made a block based on behaviour and timing, but it was in error and they were not privy to evidence that I had.

Back in the 'good old days', people were getting banhammered left and right as being socks of Wordbomb (hi, Piperdown ) - WP now needs to keep on the straight-and-narrow and not swing the other way. If they're not socks, they're not socks. QED


Man, that analogy just made me laugh out loud!!

I agree. The last thing we need is the kind of excess that causes the pendulum to swing back in the other direction.

I agree too. I put the "Mantanmoreland" tag on the account because I trusted that the blocking admin knew what they were doing. If they didn't, I'm glad you corrected it. It would make me very uncomfortable to see editors, including editors who oppose me, like Christofurio, blocked on shaky evidence.