Please AfD the Google_Watch article, It's so bad that I'm embarrassed Options

[A Horse With No Name]

Is there any medical study linking Wikipedia game playing with heartburn?

[Alison]

Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy.

Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper.

Dude. What are you playing at?

Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery.

[RMHED]

Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy.

Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper.

Dude. What are you playing at?

Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery.

What are you playing at Alison, Google Watch should be redirected to Criticism of Google, I believe Danny boy can't really object to this as long as the article history remains deleted.

By the by shouldn't you be doing important admin stuff on ED rather than pissing about on WP?

[Cyclopia]

Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy.

Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper.

Dude. What are you playing at?

Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery.

Since I've been again called directly in question, I desire to answer. No, it is not malicious, nor I understand what malice are you implying. Simply, it is a very legitimate search term (I personally think it should be a legitimate article too, but a merge is fine), and the deletion of the redirect has not been discussed at all. There is no reason at all for the redirect to be deleted apart from Mr.Brandt concerns about Google ranking algorithms -and that's something he should ask to Google, not to Wikipedia.

[Daniel Brandt]

How many DRV's have involved me during the last four years?


"You can check out anytime you
like, but you can never leave."

[RMHED]

How many DRV's have involved me during the last four years?


"You can check out anytime you
like, but you can never leave."

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

[Daniel Brandt]

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

And let me remind your who started all of this: SlimVirgin, in September 2005, started a stub on me after deciding months earlier that I was an unreliable source. She felt that I needed to be exposed because I wasn't sufficiently pro-Berlet and anti-LaRouche. Jimbo backed her up completely when I appealed to him to delete the stub. From my perspective, it's been getting more Kafkaesque ever since.

P.S.: Are you another one of those teenagers, or what?

We need to get rid of that article. We've subjected Brandt to hundreds of thousands of words of debate, 14 AfDs, I don't know how many DRVs — wall-to-wall bickering and childishness for 18 sorry months. We've allowed his article to be edited by any anonymous teenager who turns up with a grudge, and the decision to keep the wretched thing has been made 13 times by people who normally edit Star Trek. We've made complete fools of ourselves as a project.

No matter the merits of the article, the process he's been put through is totally unacceptable by any standard. We've shown we can't be trusted with a Brandt bio, and we should delete it for that reason alone, no matter how notable any of us thinks he is.

— SlimVirgin
June 14, 2007

[RMHED]

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

And let me remind your who started all of this: SlimVirgin, in September 2005, started a stub on me after deciding months earlier that I was an unreliable source. She felt that I needed to be exposed because I wasn't sufficiently pro-Berlet and anti-LaRouche. Jimbo backed her up completely when I appealed to him to delete the stub. From my perspective, it's been getting more Kafkaesque ever since.

P.S.: Are you another one of those teenagers, or what?

Appealing to Jimmy is a waste of time, you should have told him to delete the stub or you'd pay him a personal visit that he might not enjoy.

P.S. Answer: What.

[EricBarbour]

And let me remind your who started all of this: SlimVirgin, in September 2005, started a stub on me after deciding months earlier that I was an unreliable source. She felt that I needed to be exposed because I wasn't sufficiently pro-Berlet and anti-LaRouche. Jimbo backed her up completely when I appealed to him to delete the stub. From my perspective, it's been getting more Kafkaesque ever since.
P.S.: Are you another one of those teenagers, or what?

Let it go, Daniel. He's probably just had a long night of swimming in lager,
and needs to step away from the keyboard. (That's a hint, son.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 13th December 2009, 12:36am

[Alison]

By the by shouldn't you be doing important admin stuff on ED rather than pissing about on WP?

Let me get right on that

While you're at it, how's about you take that sanctimonious nonsense, roll it up and cram it sideways up your arse? I think we'd all derive great satisfaction from that, present company included.

[Coffee]

It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.

There need to be userboxes for fledgling DRV inclusionist trolls. Coffee and Cyclopia are on the shortlist.

Wait what? Did I miss something? Last I checked I was on the "rouge deleting admin" list.

[Daniel Brandt]

Here are the visitors to the google-watch.org home page from various Wikipedia sites for the last two days. This is a grand total of 32 out of 2,956 visitors to my google-watch.org home page (that's only one percent).

I don't want these people visiting google-watch.org because they've been polluted by Wikipedia before they visit. Therefore, as of now I am redirecting all *.wikipedia.org* visitors to that OTHER "Google Watch" that I have nothing to with — the one at eweek.com. He can have this traffic. I'm doing him this favor even though he started using the name "Google Watch" three years after I was already using it.

CODE

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Watch
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle

[Doc glasgow]

You are assuming all 32 weren't me and Alison trying to annoy you

[Coffee]

Sadly the attempts to take the redirect away, lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...009_December_12

[Alison]

And the continuing stoooooory;

Kendrick7 waited a month after the AfD was courtesy-blanked to suddenly revert it again. That was just mean-spirited Gotta stick it to Brandt at every opportunity, eh?

Either way, NuclearWarfare stepped in, reverted the unblanking, protected the AfD and left a snippy note on his talk page.

[Abd]

Is there any medical study linking Wikipedia game playing with heartburn?

Game playing relieves heartburn. It's believing that WP is a serious project following stated mission and neutrality policy, and trying to help, that causes stress.

[tarantino]

And the continuing stoooooory;

Kendrick7 waited a month after the AfD was courtesy-blanked to suddenly revert it again. That was just mean-spirited Gotta stick it to Brandt at every opportunity, eh?

Either way, NuclearWarfare stepped in, reverted the unblanking, protected the AfD and left a snippy note on his talk page.

He had to wait because he was blocked for a month because of this.

[Doc glasgow]

And the continuing stoooooory;

Kendrick7 waited a month after the AfD was courtesy-blanked to suddenly revert it again. That was just mean-spirited Gotta stick it to Brandt at every opportunity, eh?

Either way, NuclearWarfare stepped in, reverted the unblanking, protected the AfD and left a snippy note on his talk page.

He had to wait because he was blocked for a month because of this.

He was banned for a month for using Wikipedia for abusing a living person.

He returns from that ban and immediately proceeds to wikilawyer to get a blanking of an AfD done as a "courtesy" to that same living person reversed.

If I were still active as a WP sysop, he'd be looking an an immediate reimposition of his ban for annother month (indeed perhaps indefinate) until he learns not to use Wikipedia to pursue an obvious vendetta against a living person. This is trolling pure and simple - and an attempt to harrass a real identifiable person, whilst hiding behind his screen name.

Indeed, I'd ban his ass. (WP:BLP WP:BATTLE WP:TROLL)

[Alison]

And onwards it goes yet again Today is clearly International Piss Brandt Off Day

Enric Naval recreated Wikipedia Watch today and redirected it to Criticism of Wikipedia

I deleted it as G4 (recreated page that was deleted per a deletion discussion);

(del/undel) 13:36, 9 January 2010 Alison (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia Watch" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: C'mon now. This just went thru AfD) (view/restore)

Enric immediately demanded I restore it, which I rightly refused, so now it's gone to DrV where the usual suspects are gathering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del.../2010_January_9

What is it about Daniel Brandt that brings out so many haters???

PS: Hi guys, I know you're reading this.

[Nerd]

And onwards it goes yet again Today is clearly International Piss Brandt Off Day

Enric Naval recreated Wikipedia Watch today and redirected it to Criticism of Wikipedia

I deleted it as G4 (recreated page that was deleted per a deletion discussion);

(del/undel) 13:36, 9 January 2010 Alison (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia Watch" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: C'mon now. This just went thru AfD) (view/restore)

Enric immediately demanded I restore it, which I rightly refused, so now it's gone to DrV where the usual suspects are gathering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del.../2010_January_9

What is it about Daniel Brandt that brings out so many haters???

PS: Hi guys, I know you're reading this.

Why are you doing this? What is so awful about a redirect (other than the fact Daniel doesn't like it)? At any other time it would be completely reasonable to redirect it, and yet because it's Daniel "I collect pictures of children and put them on my website" Brandt, everyone is tiptoing round following every demand he makes.

The redirect doesn't violate BLP in any way, shape or form, so what gives? G4 is invalid, as the people have noted.