User talk:A. B./July 2008

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of July 2008. Exchanges spilling over from late June or into early August may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity. In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.

He was "trying to go on a wikibreak" when he performed the block and the mass reversions. So long as he stays on a wikibreak (as evidenced by his contributions history) I'll stay off his talk page. But if he claims to be on a wikibreak, and edits, and refuses to talk to several people (which is what he was doing) he has no right at all (and nor do you) to ask or expect people not to talk to him. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Duncan, I am disappointed with your hectoring^{[1][2][3][4][5]} of a good editor in a time of very real, deep personal tragedy off-Wikipedia.^[6] Nevertheless, you've certainly stayed within the very broad, loose boundaries of our WP:CIVIL guideline and Hu12 certainly did screw up. You're well within your rights; we don't have WP:COMPASSION or WP:UNDERSTANDING guidelines nor do we have WP:SHABBY, so I can't really stop you. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had multiple chances to actually engage constructively with the many editors who were concerned about his actions (not just on his talk page, also at ANI and on the talk at WP:SPAM). He declined these, while continuing to edit in the area of concern. Shabby I may be, but at least I have the common courtesy to reply to messages, and the decency not to say one thing while doing another. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hu12
  • (will probably be archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive152#User:Hu12, 153, or 154)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#http://spam.gresham.ac.uk
  • (will probably be archived at 2008 Archive Jun 1#http://spam.gresham.ac.uk)
• User talk:Hu12#Talk to people
• User talk:Hu12#Is there an echo in the room?
• User talk:Hu12#Insertion of broken links

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This page is off my watchlist, if you have anything of interest to say you can say it on my talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a Happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and don't forget Canada Day! (July 1). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To A.B., for protecting "Mesothelioma" from spam. Axl (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

I hate to see parasitic spam there when so many people suffer with asbestosis. It's also a honeypot for finding linkspammers in general -- many of the spammers that attack that article have many other domains they're hitting us with elsewhere.

This makes my day -- thanks again. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my sanity was slowly going with the edit war.... I'm now asking for some consensus on the talk page before I go and add the links back - I'd like to understand what the issues with it were - Leedryburgh appears to have removed a lot of the advertising from his book pages and whats left is small and unobtrusive. To remove the useful (IMHO) link entirely over these two small links would seem a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me - but I'm also equally unattached to his book as I used and own what is probably the main competition (Travis) to his book. I'll see what, if any, consensus is reached over the next few days Beardybloke (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help. It looked as if too many people were "off their meds". As for the book, it looks useful and it's published by Cisco Press, which is a credible publisher. On the other hand, it's a big no-no to push your own links and site and the transparent use of an IP after I left Leedryburgh a note was a bit galling.

In trying to build consensus, you might try drawing in a wider consensus by posting a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications.

Good luck. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war is continuing here against your requests wiki/Talk:Signaling_System_7 but in a surreal way without me present. Leedryburgh (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the candid assessment of the Park West article. I believe that PWG is as worthy of a place on Wikipedia as any of the other active businesses that currently have articles so I'd like to try and make it truley encyclopedic and remove the promotional elements (and links). As speculated though, I do have a COI - if I can make it truely encyclopedic, how much does this matter? Also, the NYT article and related articles reflect an ongoing competitive struggle along with open/pending cases, all of which I would hope are not appropriate for Wikipedia - please advise. Any advise that can help me make the PWG article a quality, encyclopedic, non-promotional, non-flame-thowing article, and worthy of Wikipedia is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorlando (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Comments:

1. I'm sorry, but you're just plain not allowed to edit articles about companies your work for. See our Conflict of Interest Guideline
2. I suggest leaving a note at our Conflict of Interest Noticeboard explaining the situation and asking them to take the related articles over for you. You might also leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment asking for help.
3. You are going to have a very hard time talking any seasoned Wikipedia editor into deleting references to a 2900+ word, in-depth New York Times article. This is the flip side of using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. In fact, the article probably should have a paragraph or more on the material reported in the New York Times.
4. Note that other, "rawer" material (not subject to editorial review) such as these ^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]} sites are not considered reliable sources (for praise or criticism). We have a Reliable Sources Guideline that covers this. (Also see www.complaintsboard.com/bycompany/park-west-gallery-a35378/bydestination.html).
5. You've done a very good job with your prose, layout, and use of our arcane Wiki-markup (or whatever we call it) in putting together your material!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I see that the NYT article has now climbed to #2 on the Times' list of most e-mailed articles today. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I left a bad link above; this is the correct link to the COI notice board; I've already left a message there:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Park West Gallery: our article compared to the New York Times'

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.B. -- As a fan of art and friend of PWG, and someone who attended their 40th anniversary event in July, I have been watching this online Internet battle which has truly been a bit of smear campaign by Fine Art Registry. Looking at the FAR forum and site, it looks like 80% of their effort is to defame Park West, and they are rehashing resolved customer issues and using that to make a case to media outlets to further their agenda. Based on insider information, NYT acknowledged insufficient research on the original article and conceded to allowing a longer-than-usual letter to the editor that was published this past Saturday. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/l10auction.html This should be referenced.

I don't consider myself an Encyclopedia editor, but in looking at the Wikipedia entry, it now reads very negative on the company, and doesn't at all reflect at all of what Park West has done for artists and people who have discovered art through them. (see Thomas Kinkade video from 7/30/2008): http://www.parkwestgallery.com/blog/post.aspx?id=24

Is it really an example of Wikipedia to base so much supposed "fact" on a few articles that were all spurred by a competitor? Especially one for which there is pending litigation? Looking at the history logs, it looks like there is an edit war going on here, and if Wikipedia intends to maintain its reputation, I'd suggest having this entry removed, or at least revised to reflect that NYT article as a footnote to its 40 year history, rather than the main story. No company is perfect, and I know the people in Park West are working hard to address customer complaints. --ParkWestFan (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to the rebuttal letter -- I have just added it to the article along with a quote from Mr. Scaglione. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the last two posts to Talk:Park_West_Gallery#Balance and suggest further discussion is conducted there. Ty 03:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as other people were pussyfooting around. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the ANI discussion you cite above. I don't remember now what drew me to List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism -- it sure wasn't an interest in Dominionism since I didn't even know what that was before then (a pro-dominion party in 1940s Newfoundland?)

In any event, when I saw the page history, I felt someone uninvolved needed to say something. I considered raising a red flag at ANI or some other noticeboard but decided it didn't quite rise to the level to justify making a federal case, so I settled for a reminder.

Thanks for the note. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wanna know if ya an admin and if so can you help with an IP Address that has enforced his own POV, broken the three revert rule and not acknowledging what is accepted by many wikipedians. thanks. Pro66 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my responses on your talk page at User talk:Pro66#Millennium and 3RR. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Leah Daughtry, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can be a useful place to request input. Also AfDs can be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Ty 01:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Park West Gallery still needs attention! Ty 02:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny token of recognition that you are one of the most conscientious editors around. The project is very fortunate to have you. — Athaenara ✉ 09:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This makes my day. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are an Administrator OR an Administrator on Recall, it does not make sense that you are both. Green Squares (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Administrator and I am open to being recalled if enough editors believe I'm doing a poor job. I'm not aware of being an "Administrator on Recall" (is there something I should know?) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has an article you'd originally tagged, I deleted, and he upset about. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_21#Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law and the permalink to my talk where he has a friendly chat about this with me. HTH. Kylu (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I keep forgetting Wikis policy of no self-defense or standing up for yourself against the trolls.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, we don't have a policy like that and Josepheaglefeather was way out of line (which is why he was blocked permanently before you even edited his user page).

We do, however, have a strong privacy policy and if you breach it, trust me, you'll bring on more aggravation than you want, which is why I tried to just make this go away discreetly. I've seen this drama play itself out too many times and it often goes off-Wikipedia where there are no rules and you have no recourse.

The best way to deal with someone like this is to report them to the community and let the community deal with them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AB. I know you were trying to help, but it seems every time I respond to a troll, I get my wrists slapped. Someone else reported him and the ban was put in place, before I even knew what happened. Sorry if I offended.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for stepping in and dealing with Talk:Signaling_System_7 and user User_talk:Dgtsyb. I really could not believe that it could go on for so long. I know Wikipedia is rather decentralised and the only help I could find was to make an RFC but it seemed rather complex and unable to deal with what I'd call clear-cut bullying by User_talk:Dgtsyb. Can you offer any advice so I don't ever run into such months of hell again - some way to flag others that things are way off track and looking bad maybe? That was the worst online experience ever, across all systems I've ever used (yes pre-Internet also) and I've spent more of my life online than offline! I really need to avoid it happening again. The COI stuff i could understand but the continous actions of User_talk:Dgtsyb against me, using multiple means that often "won" in terms of throwing in lots of new people and complications, and claims etc. was exceptionally time-consuming. I only hung in there out of principle because at least IMHO if other users were like him, Wikipedia would not exist (sheer tragedy of the commons).

THANK YOU! Leedryburgh (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could help. I was very disappointed by the whole situation and I was sorry I had to block Dgtsyb briefly. Clearly he/she has a lot to offer and I hope he can move past this. --216.47.59.237 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} [reply]

Everywhere I go, I see the excellent spam-fighting work you do here. Keep it up! Kelly ^hi! 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This makes my day. --16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.59.237 (talk) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)}

If you have time, please look in, and also on the talk page. Ty 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked briefly at this. I would not get to hung up on the issue of sock-puppetry -- there are many people in the gallery's economic food chain and it's quite possible that they are editing in an uncoordinated fashion.

More to the point, they don't get to whitewash their story; in fact they're not even allowed to edit the article at all, although they can make comments on the talkpage. If there is a source that meets the requirements of WP:V, etc about fineartregistry.com, then it probably should be added (and cited) if it relates directly to the gallery article.

As for all the talk about the default judgement on the defamation suit, from what I read, it looks like the Gallery sued fineartregistry.com (which is based in Arizona, I think) in a local Michigan court and fineartregistry.com did not show up. I am no expert on American law, but I think you have to go to a federal court to for this sort of lawsuit "to count" where the parties are in different parts of the country. I spent many hours reading all this junk before I made my edits.

Just hang tough on our guidelines and policies as you're doing. Go to WP:COI/N for help, especially if folks try to drag you into an edit-war/WP:3RR type situation. --216.47.59.237 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} [reply]

Sorry to disturb, but can you tell me how to upload photos, I'm not familiar with the policies of this site--Frozenguild (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]