User talk:A. B./August-October 2006

This is a Wikipedia user talkpage. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs (and the users whose comments appear on it) may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. You can leave me a message here. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B./August-October_2006.

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the period August to October 2006. Exchanges spilling over into late July or early November 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.

Thank you so much....

I humbly thank you for taking time off of your wikibreak to come here. If there is anything within my powers that I can do, just ask. Thank you. I'll let you get back to your break, as I know every now and then we all need one. SynergeticMaggot 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks are needed really. I'm happy to do it. Although you were checkuser'd because of coincidence, sometimes RfA voters don't bother to follow the links (which would have shown in this caes that you were quite innocent). I'm glad that of my few brief visits to Wikipedia, one turned out to coincide with this issue turning up. A dead goat in the well for any length of time poisons an RfA, even if it's proven wrong because so many editors don't go back to the RfA after voting to see new evidence. I've seen two recent RfA's get hosed that way. --A. B. 23:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed something about the checkuser I wish to answer. The reason me and 999 show up in related AfD's is because we edit similar articles, and also cruise AfD's. I'm more inclined to keep or delete an article in an occult related field, as this is where me and 999 edit. I hope this clears up anything you may have wondered about it. SynergeticMaggot 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet query

No problem. I guess you didn't notice that before you started tagging possible socks in that AfD, that I had been tagging them, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed with my vote. Also, I was the one that put the Anon warning template on the AfD, if I recall. Those socks were clearly from competing factions of the Gnostic Movement - of course you couldn't know it unless I say it, so I'll say it now: I'm not a member of any of the competing factions. In fact, while I've been aware of the existance of Samael Aun Weor for several years, I've never read any of his books and have no opinion one way or the other about him. My objection to the article was that it has no sources. I think articles on the individual organizations are a fine idea, and that a composite article is a very bad idea. It's easier for each group to defend their own article. It makes it clear who is taking the high ground and who the low... At least, that was my experience with a similar situation with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Take a look at the set of articles on contemporary orders, you'll see that the POV attackers quickly figured out that they had no leverage once the articles were separated... -999 (Talk) 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I did notice your tagging them, but then I thought to myself : "this corner of Wikipedia can get so odd, who knows -- maybe someone is playing both sides". Please don't get offended. I was also in the middle of the whole Gnaa, Nigeria AfD (1, 2) situation where I think folks from GNAA were having fun occasionally lobbing in a potshot on either side of the issue to keep the earnest Wikipedians stirred up for their entertainment.

I assure you, I don't think I'm ever going to get involved with another "Gn" article again. I'm back to the calm world of Tennessee history and submarines (after my trip to Nigeria Thursday to search out Gnaa) --A. B. 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

Hello again A.B., Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I hope I gain enough experience in order to see your support next time! You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page. Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

I'm back from traveling

I'm back from spending several weeks in Lagos, where I worked with some new, very professional clients. I also got out and visited some other areas in southern and central Nigeria-- but I never did find the mythical city of Gnaa.

It'll be a while before I can do anything with Wikipedia, however.--A. B. 00:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! I'm sure it was an amazing experience! Too bad about Gnaa, though, hehe hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PWU

Thanks for taking a crack at this. I appreciate the historical stuff, especially the links to court docs. The primary problem though, is, what about *now*? So what that the school went through turmoil more than 5 years ago, or 2 years ago or whatever? How would you respond to the new president, who is working diligently to obtain accreditation? There is no doubt any attempt to unring the bell, as it were, will be slammed - but what do you do to give appropriate treatment to fresh blood working to overcome this? When does the school's current situation surpass the scandal? Food for thought.--Brad Patrick 17:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad, thanks for the response.

Seeing as I'm the guy who inadvertently vandalized your talk page by deleting (1, 2) -- accidentally -- the congratulatory messages on the birth of your child, I appreciate the fact that you're even responding!

You raise good questions and, as a non-admin, it lead me into review of the various policies and guidelines.

I feel the new president's pain (maybe), but I believe we're constrained to be encyclopedic. Does he have anything to cite that we can use? I could see us quoting him saying something factual, dry and brief (3-4 sentences?): "We recognize problems in the past but we are undertaking the following three initiatives to correct this ... One, we're ... etc." Personally I'd be squeamish about quoting either puffery: "PWU is a vibrant institution with world-class faculty, etc." or something very long. Besides, a PR-sounding statement embedded in an otherwise dryly written objective article just makes the person quoted seem slippery, so it's in the new president's own interest anyway to avoid PR-type language.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves
• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence -- the standard any edits have to meet, including mine and the new president's

Also, any statement of his we quoted it would have to be posted somewhere, I suppose, so that we could link to it. That or somewhere widely available in written form and publicly accessible. (WP:OR)

The new president is living with some hard truths -- he is running an unaccredited college and it has a problematic past. I've once been in similar shoes in the business world where I had to turn around a business not only financially but ethically. I don't know if he is genuinely sincere or just one more person with big promises. Other than getting a quote from him, my impression is that we have to stick with the publicly available, verifiable, credible truth, hard or not. That some of the truths are hard are his problem not ours, notwithstanding our own personal hopes that he is in fact a true reformer and that he salvages this school.

I did several things in writing this article to bend over backwards in accomodating PWU sensitivities; I'm not sure "bolder", more experienced editors would have felt so constrained:

• I tried to avoid the piling on effect (a.k.a. "Undue weight")-- using multiple, neutral but adverse, encyclopedic edits (quotes from articles in major papers, etc.), each NPOV, but in such quantity as to have a collectively POV effect. I did not use all the encyclopedic material out there.
• I pulled my punches on the Australian scandal. Major Australian newspapers have done more digging into PWU than American media as a result of research into scandals involving a major Australian political figure who holds (or maybe doesn't hold) a PWU degree. These articles have good, factual information on PWU but it's sometimes embedded in unrelated, lurid details of things that happened in Australia:
  • One article with great info I chose to omit from the references simply because the headline was about "call girls", an aspect of the scandal unrelated to PWU. From an earlier editor's version (reformatted here slightly):

"Dr. Detrick is leading the university as it applies for initial accreditation by the nationally recognized DETC Accrediting Commission the same organization that gives California Coast University its accreditation. However, an article related to the Marcus Einfeld controversy in Australia quoted Dr. Detrick as saying that the university's past was a "stumbling block" for accreditation, and that he recommended that it be closed, though it was not clear when he had made that recommendation (quoted from The Australian: "Callgirl enters Einfeld")."

• PWU did not exactly deny the politician attended, but they said they had no record of his attendance (apparently, there were some record storage issues in a recent move or change of ownership). While I felt that I did have to mention the scandal since Australians will come to Wikipedia for info on PWU, I tried to put PWU's role in perspective as a truly peripheral player.

• I did not use the stuff from 1994 another editor posted above due to its age. I still think stuff that's more recent is very relevant -- institutions don't change quickly.
• I did not use the QuackWatch reference even though it's encyclopedic just because the site's name is inflammatory.

The U.S. Department of Education recognizes six regional accreditation organizations which provide the fundamental basis of collegiate and graduate accreditation in the United States today. Additionally, individual programs within a school may have further accreditation within a specialized area. For instance, legal education programs require additional accreditation by the American Bar Association and nursing programs by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. The Distance Education and Training Council accreditation that PWU is seeking falls into the latter category, however even with DETC accreditation of PWU distance learnign programs, PWU degrees will still be considered as invalid by many organizations becuase the university lacks fundamental regional accreditation.

As for the relevance of 1997 events, I think the fact that the school was fined in 1997 for breaking Hawaiian law and engaging in deceptive business practices is very relevant when you then read that they were back in the same court paying a much bigger fine for a similar (but broader) list just several months ago. (1, 2, 3). There's the 2004 GAO investigation -- 2 years old, yes, but at what point does Wikipedia give a person or organization a pass on adverse information due to some unwritten statute of limitations? It doesn't for a lot of other folks:

• Roman Catholic sex abuse cases
• Boston University Biolabs
• Harvard University#Views of Harvard
• Lawrence Summers
• Dartmouth College#Native Americans at Dartmouth
• Yale University#Criticisms of Yale
• University of Pennsylvania#Controversy

Finally, while I'm not saying the new president is communicating with Wikipedia in bad faith, we don't believe or disbelieve anybody's good intentions; it's against our rules. Look at it this way, if the new president were a fraudster, he'd be saying the same things to us as an actual reformer would be saying. As Sergeant Joe Friday used to say on Dragnet, "All we want are the facts, ma'am."

Let me know any thoughts you have on the above and what I should do next (or recruit an admin to do).

--A. B. 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia is a hobby for me, a job for you. It's Sunday -- for Pete's sake, don't bother with an answer today!

Did you email me regarding the RJK website about me?

If so, thanks. It's kind of creepy.

Yes -- I was leaving a note for Brad Patrick about another article, saw the link left there by RJK, then followed it back to that site. I thought you and the others involved would want to know even if it is creepy. I still don't understand why you'd combine a Latvian mailing address, NY phone number, while editing Wikipedia anonymously from Toronto to post links on another Toronto site.

I have not been involved with the USAA saga, but it looks tedious for those involved.

--A. B. 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also -- note this thread on the ANI yesterday:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats against Carnildo by Spockman

Spockman is apparently RJK.

RJK cites a lot of legal bases for threatening Wikipedia editors. I think he's overlooking some key legal principals and laws in the U.S. such as freedom of speech, but then I'm no lawyer.

Note that he's sending those Carnildo threats via an IP address in Germany, so who knows what he's really doing or where he is.

--A. B. 22:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(Protected against reverts and noindex: as they say guys, you be "on the record")

[1]

[2]

Actually, I'd like to know:

1. 1: Where exactly is the website?
2. 2: What is creepy about it?
3. 3: Why the obsession about where rjk is and what his phone number is.

You act dogs sniffing another dog's poop. How about this for an explanation?

a: He is in Latvia, a country known for freedom of the press. b: He has an VOIP telephone (try calling it and ask him); and, c: The server he is using, when run through an IP Locator, comes up in Germany.

I know you guys don't have much classical education. And it is obvious that you never had debating classes. That you're stupid is not your fault: that your parents couldn't afford an education is regrettable.

But there is a logical principal, Occam's razor which will help you get smart real fast: just stick to the facts, guys.

Got to run before you revert this and block me for vandalizing . . .

Response to Robert J. Koenig/84.58.192.51's post above

My "obsession" with your contact details: I don't think I'm especially obsessed about your phone number, etc. -- just mildly fascinated by what a complicated set-up you use. Also, since various of your user accounts have been banned, it's relevant to find out at least what Internet connection you're using. Clearly, you're a fairly sophisticated operator and capable of bypassing the traditional Wikipedia systems. Beyond that, I didn't have much interest in or time for your ongoing battles. As I noted above, they sure look tedious.

• That's my point. You're obsessed with Koenig: and his tedious message. But if you go back over the entire history of the matter, you discover this: in essence, Koenig has said only two things: #1 - USAA is an unincorporated entity; and # 2: the legal case True v United Services Automobile Association is the single most important feature of USAA's balance sheet. That is pretty much it; that is all he has said. You are invited to go over the history of the discussion pages at USAA. Robert G. Davis of USAA has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars as well as having Koenig jailed to stop Koenig from thinking and talking about these things. The "story", if you will, is that Koenig is obsessed to talk about USAA's unconventional status as an unincorporated entity whereas Robert G. Davis wants desperately to stop him. And when Koenig starts to talk about the possibility of a legal victory in True v USAA forcing a winding down of USAA's business, Robert G. Davis goes ballistic. Koenig is a talker and a writer: you have the privilege of forming your own conclusions about the practicality and reality what he posits: maybe Koenig is disconnected from reality and throoughly psychotic. But that question is not wikipedable: and if what Koenig says is not factually correct - then Robert G. Davis should engage Koenig on the facts and on the merits. But at the end of the day, Robert G. Davis apparently has something to hide: and Mr. Davis is absolutely scared shitless of Koenig. That's the real story. Forget about Koenig: he's just a gadfly.

My education: I agree, I don't have a "classical" education -- it was mostly technical with a few liberal arts electives. As for my lack of debate training -- I've never been interested. Stupid" is a rude thing to say and I don't think anyone besides yourself would say that I am. Having said that, it's certainly possible that you're smarter than I am but that's hardly an exclusive club. Statistically at least ten million people around the world are smarter than me. I still manage to get by, however.

• The excellent phrasing of your response fairly well torpedoes my argument about your stupidity: my stupidand improper statement is withdrawn and I apologize. Will that settle that matter? Good - I hoped it would.

There's nothing to settle. It doesn't change anything -- 10 million people are still smarter than me!--A. B. 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is always somebody smarter and somebody a little richer - except for a certain person in Redmond, WA.

I'm not sure your comments above constitutes "vandalism" as Wikipedia would define it. As for your earlier fiddling with the link to Dartmouth College above, it's too trivial to be "vandalism"; "peculiar" is a probably a better description.

• What fiddling with what Dartmouth link? Why would I fiddle with a link to Dartmouth? I just plain don't understand. Please forgive me: and then please explain. But I think you may be operating under a misapprehension. If something about Dartmouth became collatoral damage in something I wrote - well I apologize. I've never gone out of my way to offend the North Woodsmen - even when I was at Harvard.

Your comment above, "you be 'on the record'": By all means -- record away. I'm not sure of your purpose, but I'm not particularly concerned.

• The reason why you are unconcerned about being on the record is evidently because you are unafraid to have your statements and views put down for posterity. This must be because you are confident that what you think and say will stand the test of time. I can think of no other reason. But Robert G. Davis' shills fight like harlots: they use falsely-acquired administrator skills to revert and delete. And they have never once identified themselves - citing of course that they are afraid of Koenig, the soto voce suggestion being that Koenig will visit violence on them. But actually, they are afraid of Koenig's pen - and justifiably so. Their reversions and deletions on the critical issues are so complete that is actually hard to find anything Koenig has written. Yet on the USAA Discussion Page, Koenig is mentioned by name, initials, or easily understood direct personal reference 40 times. That's really a little outrageous. You'd think Koenig was standing on a soapbox and 1st Avenue and 3rd in downtown Bahgdad putting down Islam or something. There are a lot of people who feel very strongly about USAA's image (shall we say?) not being changed. Evidently, they feel very very very strongly about that.

• Enjoy Riga; I've long wanted to visit the Baltics and I understand Riga is beautiful. I'll bet it's especially beautiful in early October.

• The Baltics are indeed fantastic - although a little flat. Did you know that Kalingrad (formerly Koenigsberg) is in a little section of Russia which has become completely cut off from mother Russia. There is this little bit of Russia 300 miles from its homeland. The girls are absolutely fantastic looking.

Good day, --A. B. 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unrepentant Spammer

A.B. As a new Wikipedia contributor, I must admit I only made a cursory review of Wiki policies regarding what could be linked to articles. In reading one of several policy sections, I was correctly under the impression that my website URL was not allowed in the body of content, but mistaken in believing it could be added in the External Links section. I don't appreciate being called an unrepentant spammer, you should follow Wiki policy of courtesy. Wilcoweb 00:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a quick check of my contributions should quite any doubt about your comments. Wilcoweb 00:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wiki policy of courtesy??" Your Wikipedia record shows:

1. Mishmash8 left you a note telling you not add these links.

2. You responded to Mishmash8 this way:

I provide a access to MLS data for all users to access free of charge, no registration required. You should remove all Google links, they too are a business, just quite a bit bigger than mine. Google Analytics reports to me that visitors referred from Wikipedia spend an average of 4:32 seconds searching the MLS on my website. Thanks for your input, I'll check back to see if you've removed Google, Yahoo and all other "for profit" external links."

3. I responded to these comments on your Wilcoweb talk page. Courteously, I think, in light of your tone above; here are excerpts:

Hi, from your response above, I'm not sure you understand Wikipedia's policies on external links and self-promotion. Here are the relevant rules and norms ... If you think these rules are wrong-headed, I encourage you to get involved with Wikipedia and work to get them changed. In the meantime, the volunteer editors such as myself and the others that deleted all your links are just playing by the rules ...You must know a lot about this part of North Carolina -- I encourage you pitch in and add some useful, non-promotion content -- it's always welcome.

4. I reversed two of your self-promotional edits (1, 2) with the comment "unrepentant spammer" in the edit summaries -- see your comments above to Mishmash8 (and the Wikipedia community in general) for the reason why.

5. I put the standard Wikipedia spam warning on the talk page for your anonymous IP account, 65.1.143.194.

6. Per your suggestion for a quick check of your contributions; results (with links to each edit):

• • Using the anonymous IP address 65.1.143.194:
    • Adding or editing promotional links to your real estate business: 1
      • 1
    • Snapping at Mishmash8 (see above): 1
      • 1
  • Using your Wilcoweb account:
    • Adding or editing promotional links to your business: 18
      • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
    • Complaints to me above: 2
      • 1, 2
    • Adding substantive content to Wikipedia: 1
      • 1 (today -- nice start)

--A. B. 03:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Final Response Regarding A.B. Wikipedia Civility Code Violations

Sorry, I must have touched a nerve in voicing displeasure with your personal attacks. I didn't mean to offend, my only intention was to protest your coarse treatment of me. I won't post anymore regarding this issue, you can have the last word.

As per my snapping at mishmash, you are correct, it was not very thoughtful and was out of line. As mentioned in my first post, I assumed I was in the right, but wasn't, about adding my link in the External Links sections. However, I made no personal attacks or personally disparaging statements about Mishmash. Hardly justification for your rude posts about me...as my grandpa said "two wrongs don't make a right".

As per the anon IP contributions, I honestly didn't know you could edit while not logged in. First, I'm not too happy about posting my IP address here for all to see. Second, if it were an attempt to hide my identity, I doubt I would have answered Mishmash's comments in MY username My Talk section, in FIRST PERSON, with this "secret identity". Rookie error.

I reposted links only because I thought I had somehow disabled them with a minor edit. They had been active for MONTHS, then suddenly gone after I deleted one word out of the link...I thought I caused the delete. I didn't realize Mishmash and you were editing, and most importantly, didn't realize there were comments attached to the edits asking me to stop until I read Mishmash's post. I'm honest, if nothing else, and didn't know "talk" was taking place...at least not soon enough. Rookie error.

In the first response, you're quiet on your personal violations of Wikipedia Civility codes. It's easy to point a finger at someone else, but very hard to point back at yourself. I have seen no code sections that suspend or revoke Wikipedia policies if another user is out of line. I'm curious where your justifications for name calling and personal attacks lie. It'll be hard for you to answer this one, but you must. Calling someone an "unrepentant spammer" is not only unnecessary, but also offensive, willfully disparaging and clearly outside Wikipedia Civility guidelines.

Finally, in your home page you are very critical of those who are harsh towards new users. I hope you'll follow your own advice when responding to this post. I imagine it would be easy for you to look at my username history and understand that I'm a newbie and, as such, would benefit far more from your Wikipedia experience than from exposure to your biting tongue and critical rhetoric.

BTW You left some URL's in External Links of the articles I posted to -- one a direct competitor of mine and one of an event's promotional site. Is there something I could do to meet the criteria you identified in those links as acceptable and repost my URL?

Thanks. 65.1.143.194 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

How'd that happen, I was logged in? The edit sessions must time out, huh? Wilcoweb 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When I delete spam, I usually leave a note familiarizing new people with the rules, just as Mishmash8 did. 9 times out of 10, people say something like "Ooops, sorry" and that's it. Then there's the 1 in 10 -- people caught acting shabbily who lash out at the person who asks them to stop (like Mishmash8). If your comment wasn't "unrepentant", I don't know what is.

Wikipedia has a strong guideline requiring editors "assume good faith" -- see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. But it also says (in bold print):

"This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."

Hard truths:

1. You posted multiple spam links multiple times
2. You were rude to Mishmash8 when aked to stop
3. You were clearly unrepentant in your remarks
4. "Unrepentant spammer" is a matter of fact characterization

I don't see that under these circumstances I broke any rules

As for any of your competitors' links, you are not only welcome to delete them, you are encouraged to delete them. When someone is flagged as spamming Wikipedia, a volunteer such as Mishmash8 will typically follow all that person's contributions looking for spam and deleting it. They don't stick around to check out all the other links in all those articles. Resources:

• Check the spammer's "User contributions" to look for other instances -- use the link in the lefthand margin of a user's talk or user page. Click on the "diff" link to see their changes.
• Special:Linksearch - look for other instances of a domain. Use * as a wildcard: entering *.hp.com returns all links to HP.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam
• Wikipedia:Spam#Warning spammers - add a warning to their talk pages.

If you're unsure about adding or deleting a link, you can leave a note on the article's talk page asking advice.

Staying logged in: Edit your Wikipedia preferences (top right hand side of your Wikipedia page when you're logged in)

--A. B. 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see:

Talk:Hernia#Robin_Williams. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Optical fiber connector Panduit edit

I appreciate you staying on top of spam, and I see your point. I'm working on the Hotlist of missing ecyclopedic articles, and Opti-Jack was listed as a "missing article". I'm not sure it deserves an article on its own, since it's just a brand of ofc. (See here.) What do you think would be best? Should it be a part of the Optical fiber connector article, should it have its own article, or should we leave it out? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Phende

Hi, that article was written by a total crackpot who was eventually banned altogether. I don't know what's he's talking about - I think it should be deleted entirely, like all of his other articles were. I've never heard of "Phende," and googling it turns up nothing. Thanks for noticing this. Sylvain1972 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You have my total support -- you might add Ngor to your list as well -- it appears very similar. I just put a ton of tags on it. --A. B. 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. As Sylvain says, these two articles are part of a whole series that were written by User:Geir smith, who, thankfully, is no longer around. Please see User:Nat Krause/GS pages. Out of all the stuff he's written, only Ngor and Phende are still around. Somebody should take a scalpel to them. Pursuant to this, I have used the new {{prod}} method to propose their deletion. If they should survive deletion, please don't be shy about hacking and slashing away at anything dubious therein.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have zero interest in hacking and slashing. If knowledgeable folks see no value in it, I sure don't. If PROD doesnt work, I'm happy to support AfD. --A. B. 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

hi A.B -- saw your note on my talk page re: Phende-- and I can see that Nat and Sylvain have already gotten here. If there's anything to be salvaged in the article, I suppose it should be kept but I myself am not knowledgeable enough. I'll take a look on the AfD for the discussion. Thanks for spotting it Zero sharp 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Verizon FIOS

Thanks for your help regarding the Verizon FIOS page. Now that I'm done with asking for help, I want to remove that section on the help page. Is it acceptable by wikipedia guidelines to do so, even if it includes a response by another user (you)? Thanks! --Dustball 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's an official guideline but in general that's not done. Your question/poll and the resulting anwers were entirely appropriate since the talk page is where editors discuss the article, raise questions and ideas and generally hammer out consensus on how to buld and maintain the article. The question could well come up again and it's useful to have this discussion available for precedent. That's my two cents' worth, anyway.

--A. B. 04:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Patent link RFC

Regarding your patent linking RFC, I moved it to your user space as User:A. B./Patent links. It wasn't really an RFC but rather than delete it, I thought you might want to save it. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Book sources. I can see some merit in trying to create a policy at Wikipedia:Patents that would standardize the patent web sites that were acceptable for linking (in my opinion, we should link only to free noncommercial and non-advertising supported sites). Good luck. Thatcher131 01:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Love your user-page points

Hi! I love your user-page comments on biting newbies. I agree completely, and think we need to do much more to assume good faith while pruning back actual vandalism. Keep up your campaign! William Pietri 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a tricky line to walk with newbie-vandals, so many of whom don't mean any harm -- they just don't know the rules. Then you get the other kind occasionally[3].

Your comment made my day.--A. B. 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

sad, lonely vandals

Thanks, It's been a busy day for my playing hooky from work foolishness patrol. Cheers. L0b0t 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Confused about WP:AIV process

Thanks for writing. WP:AIV can indeed be confusing, because those of us who patrol the page are, by policy, given some leeway as to exactly how to respond in each case. Generally, except in the more obviously egregious cases (including registered users who do nothing but spam and/or vandalize), I tend to not block unless the activity is in progress because, per policy, blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. I hope this answers your concerns. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Citracyde

A.B. thanks for the vote of confidence this wiki-world is much larger than I thought. I noticed your message as I was about to switch topics to something near and dear to my heart (besides cocktails and recipes) Fashion! Awhile back I noticed the lack of content about some of today's hottest designers. I'll definitely check out the links you posted. Thanks --Citracyde 02:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note A.B. This whole thing is beginning to be disheartening. I post without a source to back up my article - I get slammed. I post with sources and point out relevency - I get tagged for advertising. Thanks for trying, but maybe this thing isn't for me. I love contributing to things (a liberal at heart), but don't need to the extra stress in my life worrying if my articles are stand for more than 5 minutes (this one was like 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back). I have no idea what tag has been placed on my ID, but must be the equivalent of auto-delete. --Citracyde 03:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (re: Infatex spammer)

Thanks very much for your advice and the links you provided. I guess no further action is necessary/appropriate. -Seidenstud 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. You might discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam; as for me, I've had my fill of spammers for the day and I'm going to bed! --A. B. 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for supporting my RfA, and for your kind words! You cast the final vote and my RfA concluded successfully this morning, so now the real work [f]or me begins!

Atlant 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC), revised 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"so now the real work or me begins!" -- Freudian slip???

In any event, good luck!--A. B. 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or perhaps it just takes longer and longer for these old fingers to get working in the morning! Either way, thanks for the luck!

13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!

Atlant 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA - reply

Hello, and thank you for your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka. In response to your question, "Would you consider adding yourself to Category:Administrators open to recall?", my answer is "Yes."

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know! :) --Elonka 07:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick, positive response! --A. B. 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to say that I've been impressed with your researching ability, pulling in info on multiple different accounts. That's a very valuable skill on Wikipedia, especially in dealing with vandals who bounce around and keep trying to change identity! I was also doing some research myself on the vandalistic AfD's... Check here for more info: User_talk:Englishrose#Vandals and User_talk:Englishrose#Elonka. Also, if you do have any other questions for me, please feel free to ask! And no matter what happens with my RfA, I look forward to working with you in the future.  :) --Elonka 17:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

(followup) Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I do, however, appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I do find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. And as I mentioned above, I do look forward to working with you in the future, if we ever have overlapping areas of interest.  :) --Elonka 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you had some concerns about the creation of the Don G. Despain article. Please rest assured that there was absolutely no "quid pro quo" involved. I simply love writing biographies! I've also been somewhat disturbed by what I see as Wikipedia's tendency to accumulate predominantly "pop culture" bios, primarily about musicians, actors, and sports figures (like every single member of obscure soccer teams), while ignoring many other worthy professions. So I try to keep my ears open for other opportunities to add other types of biographies. During casual conversation, I learned about the existence of Don Despain, did some research to confirm his notability, and, as I have written biographies of other botanists (such as Cyrus Pringle), I decided to take on Despain's biography as well. It is my feeling that the article is a useful and worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to nominate it for deletion, but I can't think of any reason to do that, since it abides by all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I hope this addresses your concerns, but if you still have any questions, please by all means bring them up. Think of it this way: If I had a concern about you, wouldn't you prefer that I bring it to you directly? --Elonka 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Elonka, I was very concerned. Wryspy commented on Subversified's RfA comment and noted her editing history. I did some more digging and discovered linkages I found disquieting:

• Subversified's user page as it evolved: [4] [5]
• Her edit history -- the 2 Despain articles jumped out
• The edit history for Don G. Despain (you had authored this article).
• I thought Dr. Despain seemed like an admirable person but only marginally notable.
• About 30 of Subversified's 88 Wikipedia edits related to your article or adminship
• She'd been inactive since August, yet pops up just to cast a vote for you

Things were getting nastier and nastier with your RfA and I just didn't pursue it other than with Wryspy as discreetly as possible. Any more gasoline like this on the fire would be that much more divisive for the community. The whole Despain thing seemed rather moot by this point anyway. More importantly, I was satisfied that you had pledged:

• no more vanity editing (which really bothered me, emotionally, but not so much rationally)
• availability for recall in case your strong will got you into trouble

Not wanting to sit on the fence forever as a neutral, I eventually voted to support you:

• I was impressed by your role in the Lost project as the whole what-is-a-featured-article argument broke out.
• Also favorable: some of your previous opponents stuck up for you.
• Balanced against this: remaining worries that as an admin you might get overly fierce in some dogfight

So I suppose my thinking was really more "weak support" but I voted "support". It bothered me you really were getting unfairly roughed up. There were thoughful opponents to your RfA (I was on the cusp of joining them) but there were also editors whose behavior bothered me. As assertive and strong as you might be, there was still a human being inside and you did not deserve much of what you got.

So there you have it. By chance, I still had Wryspy on my watchlist and say your exchange today with him. You both made some good points. I still think a checkuser should be done on all of us. --A. B. 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. As I've said before, I really am impressed by your researching ability, which I think is extremely valuable.  :) And yes, when individuals with whom I'd previously disagreed, were able to stick up for me, that meant a *lot* to me, as I believe that it's a key element of a mature relationship, to show that someone can make up their own mind, and judge each situation independently. It shows strength of character. As for me getting "overly fierce," well, within my tens of thousands of edits, to my knowledge I've never "lost it" on anyone. As for proof, I'm confident that during the RfA process, any cross word I'd ever uttered, was going to get dragged out.  :) So if that can't convince you as to my emotional stability, I'm not sure what can. As for Subversified, she's someone that I frequently chat with via IMs, because of our IGDA involvement (we both work on the IGDA wiki). To my knowledge, it's not against the rules for me to comment to someone that I've got an active RfA. And trust me, Subversified does *not* always agree with me. ;) As for any other articles that I've edited, where the subject of the article is also in there and editing, it's usually because whenever I work on the article of a living person, I try to reach out to them off-wiki, to ask for a photo, and to encourage them to review the article for accuracy. But unfortunately, no matter how many times I tell someone to *not* edit their own article, sometimes they just can't resist.  :/ At which point I follow along behind them and remove anything promotional that they may have inserted. Though I realize that to an experienced Wikipedia editor who's making a casual glance of the edit history, it can look like I and the subject are in "cahoots," I assure you that I'm a stickler for providing sources for any claim of notability, and if anything, I'm usually quicker to remove things than add them. My contrib history would show a long list of me nominating articles for deletion via {{db-spam}} and {{db-bio}} on RC and NP patrol, except, well, the admins at WP:CSD tend to agree with me, and delete the articles that I nominate, which means that the noms don't show up in my edit history! If you want though, I can supply you with a list of redlinks to prove to you that I'm an ardent spam-fighter.  :) --Elonka 22:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please, you don't have to explain yourself. You're fine with me. I expect I will support you again in 6 months. Go have a good weekend and try to put the stress and occasional ugliness behind you for a few days. Leave the computer off. Regards, --A. B. 01:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Utica

Yes it appears I've made a mistake. Thanks for letting me know - I'll apologize to the user. Rama's arrow 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

unnecessary links

Why are you removing these links? I did not add all of them and some of them were placed by some users on pages where they do not belong. However others for example the one on Rhubarb pie fits the criteria for a link as per WP:EL. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted the Rhubarb Pie link deletion; it was in the original list of recipes by the article's creator.

These are the links I deleted to chabad.org. Where one was added by you, I've noted the link:

• Sago Mine disaster [6]
• Psychoanalysis [7]
• Jesica Santillan [8]
• Time [9]
• Prayer in Christianity added by someone else

I did not see any compelling need for links for chabad.org from these articles. --A. B. 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sago Mine disaster [10]

The link I added was commentary on what happened. However based on the current links there, it does not fit it. Maybe there should be a religious commentary subsection.

• Psychoanalysis [11]

As there are multiple points of view on Psychoanalysis, a Jewish perspective should be included.

• Jesica Santillan [12]

Jesica Santillan died and this made her notable as she died from receiving the wrong blood type. The article I added discusses the ethical dimensions of what happened.

• Time [13]

Time is a philosophical concept and the link I added was to a view from Menachem Mendel Schneerson who's a major modern Jewish philosopher.

• Prayer in Christianity added by someone else

Agree with removal. Not relevant as it is referring to Prayer in another religion other than Judaism.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - PinchasC, since essentially the same remarks are also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Chabad.org, I'll respond there. --A. B. 23:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my latest response on that page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

63.80.97.254

Quite probably, I've seen this sort of amazing turnaround before once the talk pages and/or other relevant discussion by spam fighters make it to Google. I have to say though I prefer his sort of reaction to some I've seen, the ones along the lines of "I can't believe you said this about me on da intarweb, i'm gonna sue you and wikipedia and bill gates and george bush and tony blair blah blah blah" :) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The person with friends named Despain

I have had no history with this editor, so I definitely entered the debate as a neutral observer, but after reading her answers, her history, the strange pattern of who edits her article paired with whose articles she edits or creates, and the stranger pattern of who is voting for her, she creeps the heck out of me. I'm actually scared to think what she would do with admin tools. Wryspy 05:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal IPs

Can you link me to the IPs you've referenced on WT:AIV? I'll take a look. Alphachimp 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You'll see these guys are hardly threats to democracy and are maybe hitting Wikipedia only once or twice a day, still, it's frustrating to keep warning, reversing, reporting, etc. without any feedback or corrective action. You feel silly giving still another "last warning". These guys are examples, and relatively minor ones at that. It was more the overall trend I was commenting on at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

• 193.62.42.88 (talk • contribs)
• 216.11.73.2 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your help. --A. B. 02:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not they are threats to democracy, they are certainly vandals, and I probably would have blocked them in the first place, and I've most definitely blocked them now (one till 2007 and the other for a month). Thanks for the report. Alphachimp 03:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- makes my day. And it will save other Wikipedians time cleaning up, too. --A. B. 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post* I posted on the page: and thank you for your help@

)An-Mat.br 23:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)!

Perfect T

Interesting - well it happens. Nothing to feel bad about though, WP:AGF can never hurt! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhubarb Pie

LOL! Actually, I don't have a rhubarb pie recipe that I can claim as "the best," and I have to admit to thinking that the single best piece of rhubarb pie I ever had was made by some woman in Wisconsin -- and it had strawberries in it. Solly! (I don't know what it is about Wisconsin, but, man, can they make some pies up there!) But I'll take pie any way I can get it, frankly.

[BTW, for the record, Judaism is a big topic and I have no problem with there being many links to Chabad on Jewish entries. Big topics=lots of off-site links to things that would interest readers of an article but don't belong in it. Makes sense to me. I'm just upset about the disparate treatment afforded to traditional Catholics is all. Catholicism is also a huge topic, and there were around 110 links (on relevant pages) to the by-now-infamous-in-these-parts Fish****** site -- most, not all, added by me before there was a rule against doing so -- and it got banned as "spam". So when I see 712 links to Chabad -- including links to pie recipes and Jewish thoughts on Christian prayer -- and the Fish****** site can't even get listed on the entry "traditionalist Catholics" (where it had been with no complaints for years, almost since the entry's inception, under its old name "Apologia" at the kensmen.com domain), well, it irks me. And it irks me twice when Pinchas is adding links to such things as pie recipes and won't stand on the same principle when it comes to Catholic sites having links on Catholic entries, like "Lent" or what not. (I thought I'd respond here so as to not clog up the Spam page).] A Stranger 205.188.116.130 02:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Easter Bunny

I wasn't the one who made the current page, I came across it and it seems odd to me that that is the truth. I didn't touch anything, just asking question. (This is the original comment posted by Asyouare405 on my user page.)

I had gotten there after googleing "wikipedia vandalism report" and this seemed to be the best place to report it(it isn't clear where to do so).

Is there a reason you are being so hostile?Asyouare405 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am necessarily being hostile. I am trying to understand what you're after.

Here's what you wrote [14] [15] on the page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism:

"I was looking for information the Easter Bunny and this is the site i found, judgeing by the histroy this is not the proper version".

You did not write anything about vandalism. I'm not still sure I understand what the Easter Bunny has to do with your Google search.

--A. B. 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I am not an expert on the Easter Bunny I did not want to say if it had been vandalized, just that it did not seem right. I am sorry, I guess I thought I was giving people the benfit of the doubt and trying to be friendly.Asyouare405 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So help me out here. You're saying that you were trying to report vandalism to the Easter Bunny article? Or worried that it might happen? I'm still confused. --A. B. 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was worried the article had been vandalized. One way or anotherm you or somebodyelse reverted itAsyouare405 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized in what way? --A. B. 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you had a similar experience at PWU

I'm sorry your involvement in PWU was no more productive than mine in the end. The best I can tell is that Brad Patrick is worried about being sued for an article that does anything less than report positive progress that just doesn't exist in a verifiable source, so the article stays the same (and what's worst is that it still lists branch offices in other countries when the new administration seems to want to make it clear that they're only in one location, California.) We do the best we can, I wish the next torchbearer luck. But I do think that while it's obviously up to you, it might be worth leaving the work you did somewhere in user space to help whoever next tries to make improvements to the Pacific Western article. Sirmob 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PWU

Well, I've now put your draft in. I hadn't commented earlier only because I didn't have anything better to say - the draft looked good to me, I didn't know what the legal situation was, if any. It wasn't obstrutionism, it was merely us not having any better idea what else to do, as well. But, in any case, the draft is in there now (and the page is unprotected). Please don't think your work is unapreciated; it's just that, in these cases, long waits, for no good reason, are typical. I wish it could be better, but I don't know how that would be. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

--A. B. 10:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

List

I see I'm on a list you're keeping of various editors at User:Jonathunder/sandbox -- what's up? --A. B. 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The list was not compiled or edited by me, nor was it created in my user space. Like you, I discovered I was on a list in someone else's space, and in the same category you were, incidentally, but I don't know what the categories mean. The controversy over it appears historical now, and so I don't see a need to keep it; indeed, I'd forgotten I'd saved a version. Jonathunder 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Shucks -- and I was looking forward to the witness protection program.

Thanks for getting back to me on this. --A. B. 02:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)