User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2007/August

Mantle

Please do not "move" pages by cut and paste, as you did at Mantle, it violates the GFDL and the copyright of previous authors. If you can't move the page using the move function, please request administrator assistance at WP:RM. Also, if content is moved around by cut and paste (it sometimes happens in the case of merges), the original page where the content came form must not be deleted for copyright reasons. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I have fixed this by merging the page histories. The (disambiguation) redirect can stay and is potentially useful, see WP:R and WP:DPL. Kusma (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't have had to fix anything, I used the move tab to do it. Anynobody 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You did for the move of "Mantle" to Mantle (vesture), but not for the move of the old "Mantle (disambiguation)" to Mantle. See [1]. Kusma (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I had figured the redundant page would be deleted and thought the article didn't have a talk page. Anynobody 10:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, do what you want with the the Mantle (disambiguation) page but frankly I don't see how having a superfluous page which links to the page a user would get after inputting mantle anyway is useful. (They'd have to type mantle (disambiguation) to get there or pick it as the 11th item on a search.) Anynobody 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an administrative redirect for the WP:DPL project. Usually, articles should never link to disambiguation pages, but to the intended target instead. The Mantle (disambiguation) link can be used to clarify that you deliberately want to link to the disambiguation page, for example from other, related disambiguation pages. See WP:R#Miscellaneous_and_administrative_redirects and Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. Hope that helps, Kusma (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

You're welcome! mattbr 07:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Scanner and Scientology Proxy/Sockpuppets

Thanks for the update on the COFS RfA and the Wikipedia Scanner info. If it helps, the list of Scientology IP blocks I have are:

• 12.9.238.*
• 12.9.239.*
• 198.77.154.*
• 198.77.155.*
• 198.95.10.*
• 205.180.15.*
• 205.227.165.*

Also used by some of their websites:

• scientology.org = 192.216.201.9
• various anti-mental health medication sites = 64.70.59.(131-188) & 207.217.96.(33-45)

I probably won't be active in the discussion, but I am interested in finding out the results of the arbitration. Thanks. -- HiEv 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page, but forgot to say thanks for the IPs. Thank you for the IPs. :) Anynobody 06:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Flight 19

If you insist that specific details of the PBM should be included in the lead -- not forgetting that the death toll from that aircraft is already mentioned in the lead - then I will insist that all other pertinent details are included as well, such as the ship etc. Moriori 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved this thread to the talk page, in case others want to opine on it, so I'll be responding there from now on. Anynobody 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Knocking heads together

Thanks for your contribution, which was the most thoughtful on the subject.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem :) How does the government issue work in the UK? You may not be familiar with the division of government here so before I compare the two I'll briefly explain. Each state is like a mini version of the Federal government; Arizona for example has a legislature, executive (governor), and supreme court. Within Arizona there are 15 counties with their own minor governments, I live within Maricopa County in the city of Phoenix. So it breaks down like this:

• Country: US

• State: Arizona

• [2] County: Maricopa (I'd upload the flag but the copyright is difficult to determine.)

• City: Phoenix

And I thought the UK broke down like this:

• Country

• Ulster Province

• Counties (dunno which Belfast is in)

• City: Belfast

How are the various local/regional/national governments actually divided? Anynobody 21:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Will reply - sorry for the delay - very busy and off to Poland tomorrow. Expect a response at the end of the week!--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, enjoy Poland. (Did you know that when the Nazis invaded from the West in 1939, the Soviets invaded in the East and more ore less met them halfway? They were also every bit as "nice" as the Nazis; Katyn massacre.) Anynobody 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I'm in a position to reply! Your analysis of the flags situation is quite right, but the problem arises with the Ulster flag, which represents one of the four provinces of (the whole of) Ireland. At the time of the separation of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, a few of the counties of Ulster were retained by the South. QED, the Ulster flag, as emblematic of Northern Ireland, is incorrect because it also represents certain counties in a different state.

As is so often the case in these disputes, there isn't anything that couldn't be resolved with a little goodwill and commonsense but, I suspect, the ease of edit-warring and petty joy in making one's point and doing down 'the other side' over-rides what should be a collegiate project. I'm afraid that I've given up trying to broke a compromise in this particular field!

Yes, indeed, I did know about the joint German/ Russian attack in 1939; in fact, the Soviets joined in after about a fortnight, conveniently allowing the Nazis to bear the brunt of the fighting. There's a fascinating book (one of the reviews is by me!) about the Polish experience in WW2, which most people (including myself) are woefully ignorant about: the Poles lost between 20-25% of their population in six years - most were Jews, of course, but also gypsies, homosexuals, Catholic priests, university professors, trade unionists, and so on. There's also a very good featured article, the History of Jews in Poland, which I recommend. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - the Poles were also the first to break the Enigma machine codes and the Polish resistance managed to recover and provide blueprints for a V-2 rocket. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Major Bonkers (talk • contribs) 10:43, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I'm so sorry I hadn't noticed your reply sooner, I don't know why but I expected you to still be in Poland. It's funny you should mention the Enigma, I did already know but I wish I'd of been aware of it when dumb Pollack jokes were popular here, deflating racist jokes is fun. The V-2 plans I didn't know though, and find it interesting but not surprising given the resourcefulness shown in the Warsaw Uprising.

I guess my view on the flag issue is more Americanized than I realized, I was assuming that division of the country was more complete (like the way we handled the Native Americans. "Well the way you did things is over because we've got guns and flags.") Anynobody 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The casualties don't surprise me either since large swaths of the nation got the worst of both worlds, as Churchill noted The Bolsheviks can be very cruel. Anynobody 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits in which you may be interested Kittybrewster (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I've studied it and after due thought have decided I've had enough "fun" with Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#COFS to participate in another one which would require major research on past wikiconversations I have not witnessed. I'll be watching though, as there are several important questions that the case addresses about NPOV. Anynobody 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Hi Anynoboy. I reported your threats against Barbara: [[3]] I really wish you could let the article be deleted. This would be better for everyone, including the cause of anti-Scientology. As I said on the article's talk page, Scientology's mistreatment of mentally ill people is a big cause of their bad image. Why should anti-Scientologists do the same thing? Wishing you well. -Steve Dufour 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up but I think you misunderstood what I said which was; It looks like your objections and insistence that her nationality/legal status NOT be mentioned is because YOU think she will be deported. As I've stated many times before, she is notable for her FOIA pursuits. I'm sorry the information she wants is irrational and crazy but when THOUSANDS of government employees are involved in a quest for information that doesn't exist using a law that does, it's notable to me. Thankfully it's not up to me though, and she has been mentioned in papers, which makes her notable for Wikipedia. Anynobody 02:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it? Citation please - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is reference number 1 from the article. There are more of course, and can be found in the Barbara Schwarz article. Anynobody 08:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry-- I meant does mentioned in a newspaper make him notable for wikipedia? --- Kittybrewster (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and it's actually a notable she in this case. Being the subject of an (newspaper) article establishes a basic threshold of WP:N, being mentioned in multiple articles of several papers acts as a multiplier. Though WP:N doesn't address court cases, I'd like to believe they can also increase notability too (but again that is just my opinion, the coverage in multiple secondary sources, the papers, is what I'm staking my argument on.) Anynobody 10:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dlabtot accused of being a sock

PalestineRemembered, I don't mean to sound harsh but it is most uncivil to repeatedly accuse someone of being a sock without a request for checkuser to prove it. The information which leads you to believe Dlabtot is a sock can be cited as reasons why the checkuser request should be granted. If the request is run, and confirmed, then you can call him/her a sock all you want. Anynobody 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

On examining the proper process of WP:SSP I find it's not open to me, because I don't know who the sockmaster might be (and it may be someone using his real name that he now wishes to conceal, so I'm not interested in exposing him anyway). I was stuck between challenging this editor or walking away (with likely bad effects on the article if we'd later discovered it was edited by a sock).

On this users 3rd day of participation here, he/she edited 24 times. The day afterwards (when I'd pointed out how suspicious the pattern was), there were two edits, then a break of a day, then 2 more edits. So it looks rather as if my suspicions were justified and I did good without involving anyone else. (If the response had been different and less suspicious I'd have apologised). The user has (very largely) taken to heart what I said and behaviour to policy has been improved. Of course, it's always possible I hit on a real abuser, who will learn lessons from this occasion and return with more cunning. But I've succeeded in putting him/her to a lot of trouble, while avoiding it for us. I really don't understand the objection. PalestineRemembered 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your reasons for believing the editor to be a sock, but without checkuser it could just be a coincidence that two people happen to have the same view/styles as each other. In such cases an accused editor would have no way to prove they aren't a sock, which can be frustrating to say the least. (I'm not saying you were out to do anything negative or are by definition uncivil in everything you do.)

Just so you know for the future, it's not necessary to know the puppet master to submit a checkuser request. You'd want to submit is as a Code G. Rather than listing the master, list the articles and edits which make you think a sock is operating. Anynobody 04:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Notable Wikipedian

It was my understanding that use of the Wikipedia logo as a stock icon was discouraged because it is non-free content. Another way to look at it is that Image:Wikipedesketch1.png, an image associated with Wikipedians, provides a better way to recognize this template right off the bat, whereas the Wikipedia logo doesn't really tell you anything. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, it's possible that such use might be discouraged but it wouldn't be on the basis of WP:RFCC. The reason I am insisting on the current picture is that we're dealing with a template which has been in use for quite a while so a change in graphic seems best made as a community decision. You might consider starting a WP:RFC on the template talk page to see how others feel about changing it. If no one responds after a while then change it yourself again, citing your reason (better recognition), watchlist the page and wait to see if anyone gets in a twist about it.

I actually like the new image, but as I'm sure you are aware there are many more opinions on here. Anynobody 04:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The template is freely editable, and it isn't a breaking change...if you also like the new image, then go ahead and change it, and if people don't like it then they'll probably just change it back. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to add it the way I described, and it would be improper for me to base a decision on what I like or don't like. (Seriously I would ask others first, but that's just me, you are more than welcome to. My concern was citing a WP:POLICY that doesn't apply not the change itself.) Anynobody 05:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)