User talk:A. B./November 2007

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of November 2007. Exchanges spilling over from late October or into early December 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.

I'll assume you are watching my talk! Anything we can do to make it easier? We both know what a pain it is if the log is not done when there is an appeal (& the page gets to 100K). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thoughts right now other than logging is a must to prvent chaos down the road. Thanks for nagging. I'll start thinking. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make an observation, the whole logging thing looks extremely complicated. I appreciate it's useful, but I think it needs much clearer instructions, or a more transparent method (though I'll take your word that meta has determined this to be the best way). As BozMo mentioned, it needs to be obvious to passing admins, not just those with years of familiarity with the meta method. Also re your other comment above, the log is in MediaWiki_talk space, because if it was in MediaWiki space only admins could edit it (I think). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we can talk here! My "years" of familiarity on meta are three months and I picked the method up after about four attempts :) - it is needed believe me. Someone will come along and ask and if the admin dealing with the request can find nothing there will be no legs to stand on! If there is a better way - great and actually A. B.'s is probably more experienced than I am so thoughts welcome but dealing with "appealing" (I use the word loosely) spammers takes all the evidence you can get. You (zzuuzz) are quite right - the log should be here (per Meta) but I can't move it cos I'm not an admin... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope A. B. doesn't mind being bugged by the new message bar ;) Maybe you misunderstand what I said. The logging should be in talk space so that anyone can help with it (my opinion). As I said, I know the logging will be helpful, but I think it needs clearer instructions so that admins can do it on their first visit to the page. Maybe it will become clearer as the log fills up with examples, but I still think the instructions are not as clear, or as bolded as they should be. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's one of the good guys, he'll be fine! I agree actually with the talk space aspect (semi prot tho IMO??). I'm out of time today but I'll see what I can do to improve/simplify the process tomorrow. I think it is basically a good way of doing it (& as it was a steward's idea I thought I ought to follow it:)). Thanks for the input --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it here and posted zzuuzz here too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some warnings ..

• [14:29:01] <shadowbot> ERROR: Page Template:Spamlink is outside of article space.
• [14:29:02] <LinkWatcher2> en:Template:Spamlink http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Spamlink&diff=168511320&oldid=167822074 en:User:A. B. http://www.alexa.com/search?q= (BL: alexa\.com)
• [14:29:06] <LinkWatcher2> WARNING! en:user:A. B. (en:Special:Contributions/A. B.) has added 116 links.
• [14:31:31] <shadowbot> ERROR: Page Template:Spamlink is outside of article space.
• [14:31:33] <LinkWatcher2> en:Template:Spamlink http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Spamlink&diff=168511648&oldid=168511320 en:User:A. B. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?url= (BL: alexa\.com)
• [14:31:37] <LinkWatcher2> WARNING! en:user:A. B. (en:Special:Contributions/A. B.) has added 117 links.

Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(AntiSpamBot is still shadowbot on IRC). Thanks for the additions, most useful, keep up the good work! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email. I had begun to suspect the same thing some time back but lacked evidence. I will be watching a little more closely from now on and will block the account the moment something untoward is uncovered. If you knew of this editor, you'd also know that such behvaiour is possible and also very likely. -- Longhair\^talk 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you left your delete comment, I have added links in the article to a couple of newspaper articles about the artist. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you characterized my message above as "canvassing".^[1] Just so I understand you correctly, are you implying this message was inappropriate per WP:CANVASS? FWIW, you are the only person I left such a message for. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, bad word choice on my part. I have struck out "canvassed" and replaced it with "solicited". I would agree that you did not violate WP:CANVASS. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! I just wanted to get as high quality a discussion as possible and your second review (even though I disagree with your comment on threshold circulations) takes us closer to that goal. As for Mr. Safwan, I don't really care -- whichever side of the notability line he's on, it's a close call. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I knew I was responding to comments by an anon editor, not you, so no worries! I probably should have replied on their talk page, or better yet not at all. But live and learn. Hope all is well! Pfly 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AB - Thanks for reviewing and putting time into improving the NMS list. I went back and found a lot of the articles and new ones listed on the page and I also see other companies pushing for their listings. I appreciate the work you are doing, but I don't think any of the issues or concerns I had about that list have been resolved. There are 300 or so truly notable products in the NMS market, the current review process is still definitively favoring free software and software from large monopolies, irregardless of whether either of these even have real live production deployments (there are a number of them on there that do not and/or are still new market entries not at all established). My recommendation for that list is to either delete the whole list or to substantially modify the list such that it is designed more to be a comprehensive list of all NMS. There are a lot of them but not enormous numbers of them and I suspect the storage space / resources being used in battling over these issues is an order of magnitude more than just listing the top-300 or so verifiably real NMS in the market.

This is the same view I had a year ago. It is the same view from the battle that made me despise Wikipedia's idiocy a week ago. It will be the same issue a year from now. And nothing but endless misery for editors and NMS vendors will result until either all primarily verifiable NMS are listed, or the list doesn't exist.

Again - I appreciate what you are doing and think it is a good faith effort ... but the fundamental problems are not even remotely resolved. If editors care more about "pure encyclopedic value" the entire list should probably be deleted. Because of the nature and proprietariness of NMS systems, this market is not one such that customers or users are going to be enthusiastic about entering any information whatsoever about systems they use on Wikipedia so information and references of note (that are not purchased) are not a valid indication of notability. Some of the best, most used, and most notable systems in the world are virtually unmentioned on the Internet and only known via word-of-mouth among key operations groups, and they actually prefer it this way.

If editors care more about "comprehensive and accurate content related to presentation of an NMS list", then the top 300 or so primary NMS should be listed and included. The later is the better approach in my opinion. The former is also a viable solution.

Trying to do something in the middle is impossible to do without substantial bias and endless misery for all.

I appreciate the marks on my page. I appreciate the effort you are doing. However, this is same opinion I had a year ago ... the same opinion I will have a year from now. The list should comprehensively represent the market or the list should be deleted.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 08:45, 6 November 2007

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi in Russell Brand's Ponderland you had put some of the refs at the end- perhaps just so we had them there ready? I have made them into inline refs, but I can't do your clever style of referencing so you might like to tinker with it.:) Thanks for your help.Merkinsmum 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here's one that wasn't used:

• Blackburn, Jen (2007-10-24). "Russell Brand: the naked comic". The Sun. Retrieved 2007-11-06.

You may not want it -- I'm no judge of quality.

As for using those templates, they're listed here: Wikipedia:Citation templates. It's a little intimidating at first, but I got the hang of them after a few times (although I still have to look them up to cut and paste).

Thanks for your work -- it's the content and refs that are important; the rest that I did is just formatting. I don't normally sweat the formatting too much except when an article's inappropriately taken to AfD -- it helps to lay it all out formally. I've been involved with several AfDs this week that would never have been started had the nominator spent 2 just minutes searching Google's News Archives or a few other sites

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scare at Bedtime
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Brand's Ponderland
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adsdaq
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Frodeman
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Moving Toyshop
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOV Pharmaceutical
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantinos Tsakiris
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold A. Rogers
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perimeter Mall

I felt like I had to lay out the case for notability as "encyclopedicly" as possible and even then I still found it tough going convincing editors that things like reviews by P. D. James, articles in the New York Times and $400 million cashflows really did infer notability on some of these subjects.

Normally I find myself recommending "delete" 90% of the time -- I don't know what's gotten into people this week. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had a question: Question -- at a practical level, what is the significance of "block" vs. "ban" for a new admin such as OhanaUnited? He can't "ban" someone but he can indefinitely "block" them. However, indefinite blocking is a serious step which I doubt many admins, new or old, would take lightly. So I don't see how this question really has significance other than an admin incorrectly writing "indefinitely banned" instead of "indefinitely blocked" in a block log. In any event, per WP:INDEF, one admin's "indefinite block" eventually segues into a de facto community "ban" if not reversed. I think the real concern for any RfA should be the possibility of an admin inappropriately indefinitely blocking someone, not the semantics. Am I missing something in all this? --A. B. (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit of a tricky subject. From my understanding, there are few banned users. (I just had a look at Category:Banned Wikipedia users, and there are under 400.) A person who is actually banned from the site is forbidden from editing at all, under any username. I recall at least one instance of this--an ArbCom case resulted in a banning. User:Willy on Wheels is another one. But bans are more of a community mindset than anything else. As long as the community supports the ban, the ban is in place, and a banned person demonstrates his/her status by his/her actions. Supposing that Willy on Wheels suddenly (and quietly) becomes a productive editor, he might continue for quite some time and never be "caught" with Checkuser or by any other means. And by then it might be time to reconsider the ban.

An indefinite block is different in that you are blocking the username. The person using that username can come back under a different username and be a productive editor. There are many instances of vandals who come back to be productive and long-standing editors. These people are not banned, even if their initial username was indef-blocked as "vandalism-only". I have blocked many new accounts indefinitely because they added lots of vandalism, and had no productive edits.

Basically, you have to be a serious troublemaker to actually get banned. Make sense? Wikipedia:Banning policy goes into more detail. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- that's the best explanation I've gotten. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one can bat 1.000; I nominate many articles for deletion, particularly one-liners. They may end up being notable when someone does much research to find that out and the article improves. They may end up borderline being kept anyway. But, unsourced one-line articles do little to better the encyclopedia - indeed, many of these may otherwise be speedily deleted in their current state. Requiring a nominator to be certain that an article will be deleted is gaming the system. Thanks for your comment, and for helping to keep WP an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. B.! I've nominated you for adminship here. You should have been a sysop at least a year ago, but hell, it's never too late. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy is that ever on my watch list - I'll copy n paste some nice stuff about you from somewhere:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm starting to take the hint. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A. B. still exists because someone never accepted my nomination 8 months ago, geez ;) Metros 01:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also be an early and enthusiastic supporter when you finally make the leap into the snake pit... er, RFA process. ;) Seriously, though, when you decide to accept you should update Metros' first nomination so it doesn't look like there was an unsuccessful run. — Satori Son 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wink. Durova^Charge! 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK. I did not take Metros up on his generous offer because back then I did not think I was ready; I wanted to wait at least a year from some serious gaffes in 2006. For the last three months, I've been "ready but I've not stepped forward because, due to my haphazard schedule in real life, I've never been assured of a 7-day block of time to be available for potentially several hours a day. (Of course, as my schedule actually unfolded, there turned out to have been several unanticipated blocks of time off the road.)

Then there's "that article": some people talk about writing the great novel someday -- for me, it's just a Featured Article ... or even just a Good Article ... or given what I've just read about GA and FA at LaraLove's RfA, maybe just a "nice article". I've been beavering away offline for the last 4 months researching off-line a series of submarine-related articles I want to start; believe it or not, I've actually gotten my hands on and read all these books and started drafting some stuff up. If nothing else, I now know a lot about submarines (a long time personal fascination of mine) -- maybe Durova can chip in with some of her professional insights.

Anyway, I see I will be on the road a lot through the end of November. In the meantime, I'll try to jot up my thoughts on RfA responses at User:A. B./Adminship -- please feel free to comment and give advice. I'll definitely be off the road in early December and will shoot for an RfA then.

In the meantime, you can entertain yourselves by taking my quiz.

Thanks to all you guys for your encouragement! --A. B. ^(talk) 13:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - gives a bit more time for my support essay! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I've moved the new one to /A. B. with no ending on it from /A. B. 2 since the original one was never accepted. Metros 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Did you feel that? Rudget _zŋ 22:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful on those edit summaries, everone who will participate is going to read them. --Hu12 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you putting notability tags on all of the Channel Zero Inc. property articles? For example, Movieola, Silver Screen Classics and Channel Zero Inc. itself. All of these articles are notable, they are either television channels or a broadcasting company which are all notable just like any other television channel or broadcasting company. There is enough information in these articles to keep them notable as well. You obviously seem to have a problem with Channel Zero itself and are doing this to these articles. They are all notable and should stay. 99.236.63.51 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll feel a less worried if you take a second look at the tag and then carefully read the Notability Guideline:

"The content of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline for its subject or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion."

As for having "a problem with Channel Zero itself", heck, I'd never even heard of any of these entities until I looked at Canadian-related articles for deletion and saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.‎. In the course of investigating that AfD, I found these other articles.

If you care about these articles, then by all means fix their problems. Otherwise, someone is likely to delete them. In the meantime, I'm "just doing my job". --A. B. ^(talk) 23:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put this article A. Roswell Thompson on the Louisiana delete page and the politicians delete page? You did this for Arnold Jack Rosenthal. I can't figure out how to do that.

Also can you put John J. Mawn similarly on the Arkansas delete page? Thanks, Billy Hathorn 15:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I'll try to head over there but I don't know if I'll have a whole lot of time. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated here & elsewhere. Hopefully we can now sort out the frustration of that page. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]