User talk:A. B./December 2008

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of December 2008. Exchanges spilling over from late November or into early January 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.

Protection thanks

I just wanted to thank you for protecting Proskauer Rose. This article has been the subject of attack by a group of white supremacists with some kind of vendetta against this particular law firm. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy to do it. It was just sickeningly wrong what was being done to that article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversary

It's one year since you became an administrator, let's celebrate! Caulde 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I haven't accidentally deleted the main page yet. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet... :) Caulde 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to get out of an edit war with spammer?

Hi there. I'd like to thank you (and User:SiobhanHansa) for adding dnabaser.com and related domains to the blacklist, this has noticably reduced the spamming activity. It continues, albeit now on a low level, without logging in and with redirector links (e.g. via Romania: www.cubic.3x.ro/free-DNA-tools/index.html. It still occasionally flares up like can be seen in the recent history of Sequence assembly.

Note that I would have nothing against the product being linked per se (other commercial, academic or open source apps of the same domain are too, and this helps readers to find something that suits their needs), but the complete refusal of the spammer to play nice makes this a bit hard.

Question: Would you have any advice on how one could get back to a more peaceful state? Those edit wars are childish ... but not really funny.

Regards, BaChev (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no war. You constantly deleted the link from that web page then YOU LIE that "I would have nothing against the product being linked per se (other commercial, academic or open source apps of the same domain are too, and this helps readers to find something that suits their needs)."

Cut it out child. Nobody spammed that page in the last 3 months EXCEPT you, by deleting that software EVERY SINGLE DAY, then came here crying out that you are innocent. Go mind you life boy.

PS: the software is listed in the right position, in alphabetic order, and all entries are right. How do you think you are to delete that entry daily?

Bachev pretends to be the author of a software for contig assembly so it deletes other programs. Obviously the is conflict of interests here. Actually he is uses highly promotional language for his software and brings no references.

"MIRA assembler was the first freely available assembler who could..."

Cut your bullshit and there will be no more war on that page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.163.181 (talk • contribs)

I have also blacklisted the other link used to circumvent the blacklist. I suggest that that is done with any other link that is added to circumvent blacklisting. To the IP: please discuss on talkpages first before continuing to edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dirk. It looks like you resolved the situation while I was gone. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had an an encounter with this individual last night, they changed URL from 'index.html' to 'index2.html' to get around our blacklisting. I changed the blacklist entry to catch both & delinked the URLs.. then the IP went back & changed the unlinked URL to the original domain name (unlinked). I don't have all of the background on this.. but many of those pages contain huge linkfarms/software directories.. --Versa geek 15:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page now semiprotected for a month, discussion enforcement. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll reiterate that under normal circumcanstes I would have nothing against this link. But he seems to be a special case. I got involved when he got daring and shamelessly threw away almost all but his products out of the then existing overview (declaring them as 'bunch of unused References' (diff)). And of course promoting his product as 'modern' (see this diff). After a complete revision of his page in August I even let live his link he inserted in September (diff]). Up until the day his domain landed on the blacklist (he played his game also in a number of other articles, probably too often). The chuzpe he operates with (see also the AfD he tried to divert on 'DNA Baser' by simply deleting the section), together with the total refusal to talk to people and see whether dissents could be resolved in a civil manner lets me think that he doesn't want to play nice. BaChev (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just blacklisted another link, there may be more indirect links to the software andredirect pages to the blacklisted sites (or redirect sites, not that url-shorteners go without discussion on the meta blacklist). If you find them, report them to an admin, and they should be blacklisted immediately. He should discuss, not push. If discussion comes, we can consider de-blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about original research

I have a question about original research that wasn't answered in the FAQ section.

The key difference between "original research" and "common knowledge" is whether or not an average person who does note specialize in the field the article pertains to would know. For example, things like "The sky is blue," is common knowledge to anyone who is not colorblind (at which point he would not be an "average person"), but saying something that would be common knowledge for a person in the field, but not for someone outside the field (such as pro wrestling history), is NOT common knowledge for Wikipedia purposes.

However, would it still be considered "original research" if you would take a series of facts that are common knowledge, and piece them together in a way that the only logical conclusion a reasonable person could come to from that collection of common knowledge.

Would I be allowed to put that in an article without needing to cite it (as long as I include in the body of the article the pieces of common knowledge that led to this conclusion)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.48.186 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]