User talk:A. B./early July 2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs (and the users whose comments appear on it) may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia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./early_July_2006.

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

Speedy deletions[edit]

I've deleted your old pages. In the future if you want something that you created speedily deleted, just place {{db-author}} at the top of the page. --Pilot|guy 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!--A. B. 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bacon to Mr. Sausage[edit]

No worries about the question, IDK why I wanted to change it, Funny I guess. The password to my account has been changed so THIS is my new account Peach12 Talk Contributions Email 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon, sausage, peaches ... personally, I liked Mr. Sausage best. (Commodore Sausage also has a certain ring) --A. B. 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cheddington2001[edit]

Thanks for the welcome and advice you left for me the other day.

I play no official role and I'm no administrator -- I just want to make sure a productive newcomer doesn't get tactlessly reverted or inappropriately warned. Reversions are OK if done with tact and explanation; official warnings (vandalism, etc.) should not be given when coaching would work as well.
I hope you'll consider doing the same for newcomers once you get your feet on the ground. I go to Special:New pages and look for new articles contributed by people without user pages or talk pages (i.e., red links). I look to see if the articles have merit, then if they do, I put a welcome template Wikipedia:Welcome template table on their talk page, add a personal comment about their article (with maybe a pointer, as I did with you) and then put both the person and the new page on my watch list for a week or so. If they get mugged or their page gets zapped, I try to help them.
One caution -- as time goes by, I've learned to be picky about who I do this for, particularly if I take on the additional effort of going to bat for someone. I want to make sure that even if it's a semi-vanity article or semi-unnoteworthy article, the author appears to be making other contributions and is genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia and his edits, not just making a drive-by submission of some article plugging his dry-cleaning business.
I learned this after really wasting a lot of time on this one:
I even sent the guy e-mails. Compare my earnest (and naive) attempts to help with the user's own subsequent level of effort on Wikipedia's behalf
Anyway, thanks for the nice note!


--A. B. 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and thanks for the further comment. I look forward to helping others in due course.

{Cheddington2001 12:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I need help with a PROD template[edit]

I just tried to add a PROD tag to Adarsh Samaj Sahyog Samiti and got near gibberish when shown in preview mode. Am I doing something wrong?

Here's the first thing I tried:

{{subst:prod|This article still has not been shown to meet Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability standards]]}}

Thinking the article link was the problem, I then tried:

{{subst:prod|This article still has not been shown to meet Wikipedia's notability standards}}

Then, I just tried the example from the template page:

{{subst:prod|reason}}

At this point I concluded I need a grown-up's help and hollered for help:

{{helpme}}

I notice the template was recently edited, so maybe the template itself is the issue. Note that I have been working exclusively in "Show preview" mode and have not saved any of these edits.

Thanks in advance for your help.
--A. B. 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back in the prod tag for you. --Pilotguy (roger that) 17:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

FWIW, the celerity of your substitution of the new user name would be improved markedly were you to employ WP:AWB, for use of which I think you'd surely be eligible in view of your having previously accumulated the requisite edits. In any event, I'm sure someone would gladly perform the substitutions for you using AWB (I, for example, once I've downloaded the new version), but you may well be nearly done already... Joe 02:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB looks like a powerful tool but unfortunately I'm using a Mac! It's one of the few times when I wish I didn't. I'll poke around and see if there's a Mac equivalent, but I don't think there is. I may take you up on your offer -- let me know if there's a time when you're in a position to do this. I have something like 250 pages left to do and it makes flossing feel exciting.--A. B. 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS "Celerity" is one of those excellent English words you never see used. It's nice to read something from such a semantically discriminating person.

von Wettin[edit]

Hi, yes I thought it were vandalism (because of the IP and the change). However, after your notice, I searched in Google and read in my German encyclopdia, if my reversion was wrong. George's surname was definitly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (before he changed it to Windsor; see here [1]). Wettin was an old royal noble family, from whom the House Saxe-Coburg-Gotha descends (see here: Wettin (dynasty). It's roughly the same case with Lancaster or York and Plantagenet. So you've got right, it wasn't vandalism from User:72..., but wrong information (nonsense :-) ). Greetings and thanks for your note. Phoe 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aqualand[edit]

Funny place for our paths to cross again! Please note *Aqualand Bahía de Cadiz, Andalucía was a duplicate on an invalid title (I think there may be a wiki-type markup that uses * to indicate links). I have been scrupulous in preserving every edit made by these kids. Check my deletion log. I have done four deletes all of them of unwanted titles left after I merged histories.

OK, I have not reported all my edits back to the article authors but I did leave a note at User talk:Tenerife costa adeje. -- RHaworth 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of Aqualand articles; I was unaware of others besides the 2 for Andalusia. I certainly did not mean to seem like I was objecting to deleting non-unique articles. I just wanted to give a kid a break. Now I'm not so sure -- are these kiddy edits or something from Aqualand's PR dept.? I was unaware that there was a sudden outbreak in one day of new users all spontaneously writing childish-sounding articles about different water parks (yet not editing any other articles). Given the pattern of "coincidences", it all sounds fishy to me -- I think I've been had. Feel free to delete away as far as I'm concerned at this point. I'm glad you caught what I overlooked. At least they're not threatening murder today like our other friend from yesterday.
--A. B. 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right that it is spam but I shall restrict myself to noting this at talk:Aqualand. -- RHaworth 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

odd link[edit]

I dunno. Some weird SEO site or googlebomb of some sort. Beyond the bizarre MILF page, the rest of the content is completely unrelated to either the sexy MILF or the filipino MILF. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- after seeing all those Cyrllic pages not visibly linked to the main page, I figured there was something shifty about it that probably had to do with search engine rankings.--A. B. 01:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read your user page[edit]

I've been here maybe 3 weeks now, maybe 4. I've seen enough. Thanks. Ste4k 07:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why hang on to "cult" and quibble over its meaning. I'm a fairly new editor and normally a bit timid, but tonight was my night to live dangerously and experiment with "being bold". A lot of electrons were being killed to flog this horse so I went ahead and just reworded the sentence to avoid using "cult". Those masochistically keen on minutiae can read my legalistic reasoning on the article talk page and the truly masochistic can resurrect the word and keep debating it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B. (talk • contribs) Oldest 19:07, 15 November 2005

I'm not originally from the U.S. I was born in Kharkov. In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work. The only POV in that article I wrote was that I wanted to find out the truth, did research, marked it with citations for verifiability, refused to consider any source that came from some primary provider, and all I found out for my trouble was that this encyclopedia isn't even worth quoting. You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium. Ste4k 07:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response to User:Ste4k's comment above:
I decide to check out the AfD articles, not something I normally get involved in. I come to an article for deletion, "A Course in Miracles (book)". I look over it -- I see it's been documented and footnoted almost to the very last comma. I observe a tremendous argument ensuing over one word, "cult", that's being interpreted multiple ways. Multiple editors are squabbling over whether User:Ste4k is being "POV" for using it. I change the wording to eliminate the troublesome word while meeting what I see as the intent of the original author of the quote, Garrett. I think I do an adequate if not very eloquent job. I go to a lot of effort to explain what and why I made the change, citing the dictionary, etc. I do screw up and forget to sign some of my work, which Ste4k helpfully catches and fixes.
Now I wake up and I find that Ste4k has spent hours during the night sarcastically mutilating her own article. It appears that one word, "cult", and my good faith editing of its usage may have been her tipping point to go into a frenzy. That or my one vote in the AfD process. (Ste4k, if you don't like my cult edit, just reverse it and explain how I got it wrong.)
Then there's this message Ste4k left on my talk page above. What do I make of this? Is she saying that I'm a liar and should (or would) be beaten? That I should be working harder to eat? And what's this about my family?
And as for Wikipedia being flawed, it certainly is that. It is profoundly flawed in terms of the reliability of some of its material. In fact, if so many millions of people didn't use it, I'd say forget about it. But the fact is, Wikipedia is very important and growing in importance everyday. Every day, more people abandon traditional sources of reliable information such as Britannica and turn to Wikipedia. Every month, Wikipedia's Google rankings move up higher and are often in the top 5 for a given search. The fact that so many other sites such as answers.com mirror the content makes what's written in Wikipedia seem all the more "reliable" since to the undiscerning, it looks like other sites are agreeing with Wikipedia.
So like it or not, Wikipedia is here to stay and further grow in importance. You can fume and I can fret, but our children and grandchildren will use it more and more as their first source of knowledge, reliable or not. That almost pessimistic view of Wikipedia's growing role is what motivates me -- not some idealistic, Woodstockian notion that "information longs to be free" or so much of the other idealistic stuff that motivates thousands of mostly earnest, smart but very young editors on this project.
--A. B. 13:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  1. you are a timid new user.
  2. Your comment about being new here and normally timid but deciding to be bold in my perspective was the worse imaginable joke I have ever heard about anyone in particular, and in particular the butt end of that joke was me.
  3. the specific comment I was referring to regarding this heading "Read your user page."
  4. my opinion about the entire category.
  5. Ste4k 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



First, some context for anyone else reading this:
Ste4k, I'm still at a loss. I assumed you were not using Garrett's comment to assert that ACIM is some sort of cult. If you were, then that was more than a stretch -- it was a deliberate manipulation of Garrett's comment. (If you really were trying to distort Garrett's comment to find some sort of "verifiable" source, then I don't think you were editing in good faith and your credibility just went to zero). Instead, I just assumed everyone was stuck on one problematic word and that you were working in good faith, so I just changed the wording. That's why I am so surprised by your reaction today. Now I wonder if I was just being naive in my assumption that your goal was to just comment on the book's sales pattern; maybe you really were trying to push a POV by finding a backdoor way to work an explosive word, "cult", into a very volatile article about a spiritual movement. That's what some others seemed to worry about.
Ste4k, your reference to my comment on my user page about not biting newcomers by summarily deleting their work without comment hardly applies here. I don't see a new user who's just submitted his or her first, somewhat flawed article in good faith. I hardly see a newcomer at all when I read your contribution history for the few short weeks you've been editing Wikipedia -- over 2000 edits, 4 archived talk pages and extensive work in the whole AfD process across many, many nominated articles. I see a prolific, sophisticated editor exposed to all the policies, guidelines and internal processes with much more Wikipedia experience than I have. I see a person who has nominated multiple articles for deletion and seen them through to their (probably justified) demise. So where's this fragile newcomer that needs extra consideration?
As for item 1 in your most recent note above, I'm not sure I where my first Wikipedia edit that you're citing, about a relative, fits into all of this.
As for your item 2, I thought the "butt end" if there was one was the collective group of editors, not any one individual, spending multiple man-hours trying to get past this one troublesome word. It's just so very Wikipedian to get a bunch of really smart, earnest people tied up in a knot over something like this when a simple reword would fix everything to everyone's satisfaction. I'm probably as guilty of losing perspective in some other situations as this group was. Had I thought you were pushing a POV and not editing in good faith, I would have taken a very different tone. (I'm still waiting for you or someone else to calmly explain to me how my rewording did not improve this article and break a deadlock).
Ste4k, I have not set out to become your enemy or to stick a finger in your eye. I have also not seen you as my enemy, although this new dispute is rapidly getting very old and sometimes a bit weird.
Finally, I don't know how to say this without sounding patronizing, but I'll say it anyway. I noticed you have been editing virtually around the clock with 100 edits and no break even as long as 4 hours in the last 24 hours. Can you maybe take a break for a little while? I will if you will.
--A. B. 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed in the order I read them:
  1. 03:52 No signature. This is the comment of someone here maybe a week. A timid new user.
  2. 03:36 No signature. This is the inexperienced user being bold. hooah.
  3. 04:28 signature. This is the comment of a different, very experienced user, and speaks nothing about the earlier comment.

Insults do not make enemies. They make impressions on others about the character of those who make them.

Per your comments:

  1. "Delete and merge into main article." (-- Main article? These articles are on two different topics. One article was about facts that showed that there are several factions that are competing in the marketplace for product recognition all claiming the same product's name. The other article is an example of one particular faction establishing its trademark into speech on Wikipedia, using pattern recognition and associative psychology for it's own particular purposes. Notice carefully that the "main" article that you pointed out even has a photo of the book that is printed by one particular publisher and is silent about at least the other two that I have uncovered in my research. Notice also the frequent use of the acronym "ACIM" which isn't normally used except by this particular faction. It may as well say "ACME".
  2. "Delete as POV forks any . . ." (-- Fairly timid new user that hasn't researched the topic enough to understand that these two articles are diametrically opposed, one based on fact pointing out the numerous versions of this book by different publishers, the other resorting to rhetoric and dogma to give the impression that only one specific publisher's version exists.
  3. Your first edit? Shows that you have been here quite a bit longer than I have and know the ropes. (timid new user, right, npov... right gotcha. thanks for making your point instead of allowing the cited quote to stand like all other content on the page which were also verbatim except for the portions merged in. If the books under this title were notable in the first place, your suggestion about finding another source would be pertinent. Try finding a source before suggesting that one exists next time. Thanks.
  4. cult? woopidy doo.

Ste4k 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. Read your own comments and notice how even you have begun using the "ACIM" term to refer to "all of the various factions, only one of which uses that brandname".

Ste4k 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On "cult"[edit]

Hello, A. B. I appriciate your comments, and think it was good of you to go ahead and change the relevant wording at A Course in Miracles (book). I believe the discussion surrounding the word "cult" is more of a duplication of the very serious edit war that occured at Wikipedia:Verifiability and the the ongoing debate both there and at Wikipedia:No original research. Most editors agree that verifiability of articles (citation of only reputable secondary sources) and that no original research in articles are two crutial factors in keeping the encyclopedia credible. A minority of editors want occasional exceptions (see the policy talk pages), and this approaches sacrilegious heresy to many others. It is because A Course in Miracles goes against this code in many places that there is such heated discussion about it. I think Ste4k's intention was to correct this glaring omission in policy to the best of her ability, and the discussion concerning this single word should be seen as a microcosm of the greater debate concerning Wikipedia's verifiability policies. —Antireconciler 03:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your note on my user page about this dispute. I also respect and admire your explanation and defense of Ste4k's actions and motives. I would agree with you up until about 24 hours ago. My edit apparently pushed her over some edge; she opened up with a screed on my talk page that included this type of stuff:
"In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work." and "You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium."
I still don't know what to make of the first one -- is she making a hollow threat? Calling me a liar? Who knows.
Ste4k went on to spend what appears to have been hours pouring over my edit history and user pages for inconsistencies, hypocrisy and mistakes, then bringing them out for deconstructive criticism. There's plenty of grist for her mill in my history in the way of minutiae, mistakes on my part and misinterpretations on hers, so she could be at it a while. She can keep beavering away at my many petty sins as long as she wants; it's probably a useful if annoying source of feedback on my edits.
Some of Ste4k's other actions during this time have been downright weird, especially her systematic, sarcastic destruction of all her own work on the A Course in Miracles (book) article followed by its replacement with some sort of a parody. This all adds up to form a strange picture; for now, she's lost the respect that I had for her when I first looked at her work last night.
I did notice that Ste4k had just been on a 24 hour editing binge producing about 100 edits without any breaks longer than 4 hours. Since I knew she respected you, I actually started to write you an e-mail earlier today suggesting you leave her a message of support and encouraging her to take care of herself. As I was doing this, however, I received more sniping on my talk page; I'm afraid renewed annoyance overtook my fleeting moment of compassion and I deleted my e-mail to you without sending it. You might still consider this as her friend; as for me, at this point I've pretty much had it with this person.
Again, thank you for your kindness and advice to the various players in this odd drama, including myself ... and perhaps even Ste4k.
--A. B. 05:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely appriciate your confidence. I only see that both you and Ste4k, myself, and anyone else I observe here wants simply to make a positive contribution and leave the place better than they found it in some way. How completely human that is, and how warming it is to see, so naturally I would want you two and others to come to terms and agreement. Everyone says things they don't mean sometimes.
—Antireconciler 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed][edit]

(somewhere else) You wrote: <snip> Ste4k went on to spend what appears to have been hours pouring over my edit history and user pages for inconsistencies, hypocrisy and mistakes, then bringing them out for deconstructive criticism. [citation needed] There's plenty of grist for her mill in my history in the way of minutiae, mistakes on my part and misinterpretations on hers,[citation needed] so she could be at it a while. She can keep beavering away at my many petty sins as long as she wants; it's probably a useful if annoying source of feedback on my edits. <snip> A. B. 05:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hours? when? Bringing them out for criticism? Where? When? It takes about 10 seconds to find your first edit. Make sure that what you are spreading around is the truth. You still haven't apologized for pretending to be a n00b then turning around to slap a POV "delete" on the article. Do you think I am stupid, too? I already told you that insults don't make enemies, but if you want an enemy, then you should reconsider your choice, imho. Ste4k 05:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments to Ste4k on my edits, demeanor, general morality, etc.[edit]

You seem to think that I was disingenuous in describing myself as a "timid new user". Here is my response:

"Timid"[edit]

First, "timid": Wikipedia:Editing policy makes the following comments regarding editing styles:

"There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be:"
  1. "Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages."
  2. "Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress."
  3. "Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion becomes the last resort."
  4. "An intermediate viewpoint accords that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough."
"There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia."

As an editor, I've typically fallen into the category 2 above, unless I think a person is editing in bad faith. I tend to be deferential to other editors and explain my actions on article and user talk pages more than most other editors. More than once a more experienced editor has told me to just "be bold". "Timid" was probably not as good a word choice as "circumspect" or "respectful" since timid also implies fearfulness, which I certainly don't feel on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I am probably less patient with bad faith behavior than most editors and I have no qualms about expressing myself in these circumstance, especially if this behavior is egregiously blatant (vandalism, personal attacks, link-spamming). I can also be very assertive when I see an experienced editor bullying a newcomer. I also feel little need for circumspection when others express hostility my way.

"New user"[edit]

I am not a brand new user, but I believe in the context of various administrative actions, such as AfD, I don't have a lot of experience. I'm guessing I've probably made about 1000 to 1500 edits. I doubt I made more than a handful of edits before about mid-May. I suspect a review of my edit history would reveal:

  • 100s of minor edits to fix my own mistakes. Even though I doublecheck my work using the "Show Preview" button, I find I am typo-prone and a poor proofreader of my own work.
  • 100 to 150 edits in connection with reversing one recent coordinated link-spam attack
  • 100 to 300 edits in connection with welcoming new users, coaching them on their articles and occasionally going to bat for them if I see them getting hassled
  • 100 to 300 edits involving simple cases of vandalism
  • Little participation in truly controversial topics such as ACIM (by the way, I use "ACIM" out of laziness, not out of affiliation with some "faction"). Knoxville, Tennessee, Submarine and Optical fiber are seldom controversial. 1421 hypothesis is about as exciting as my watchlist gets.
  • Little participation in AfD, especially contentious cases. In the few situations I got involved in, I've usually felt in retrospect as if I'd missed some key point more experienced editors were making.

I feel relatively experienced as a basic Wikipedia editor, but not when it comes to dealing with policy issues, non-routine administrative actions and dealing with substantive content controversy. I have never just "trolled" AfD before the other night, when I decided to look at several articles. I also assumed most of the other participants in AfD proceedings were more experienced than myself and mostly administrators. I just now spot-checked some of the others' edit histories from the ACIM proceeding and was surprised to learn this described maybe only half the other participants. I see now that I was hardly a "new user" compared to some of the others; I find that a bit scary.

--A. B. 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Seriously, that was funny. :) Look, don't sweat it. Toss it off. Consider the facts. Regardless of how you went about it, you did convince me to change my vote on my own article, right? So, put a little ribbon in your political achievement drawer, and forget about it. okay? About the amount of edits, and the frequency of my contribs, if you knew what I used to do for a living, and for whom, you would think I was being lazy. :)

Ste4k 21:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.
--A. B. 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in miracles, but...[edit]

I personally don't ever want to hear or see the words "A Course in Miracles" and Wikipedia in the same sentence. I'm back to Submarines, Knoxville, Tennessee and other easy articles.

--A. B. 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I felt the same way before I knew anything about it at all. About a week and a half ago. Writing that article unveiled some, hmmmm... ikky, nasty, goo swill drek, (to be nice about it), and I have reached only the top end of that. So, therefore, the, ehem... political nature of this article has a few people up in arms trying to protect that sort of smellery from having some fresh air applied. The (book) article was obviously out to go for the truth, which, of course, is the throat as well, depending at how you look at it. Since it was not finished, not even close, and only about one third of the way there, certain peoples' shorts started to have crawly ants, and itchy fits. Both of the AfD's were in bad faith, but who cares. They have enough experience to go yelling about that sort of thing as if it matters. So, the correct thing to do, to the innocent little week old article is just to pull it's plug. No, I didn't like that at all, and the way you appeared to have gone about it, by not signing those posts, put you in a rather suspicious light. Consider what it looked like to me. What you don't know about this whole thing is that the "main article" is not just an article about a book. It's a smoke and mirrors campaign. Anyhow, if/when I feel like researching that more, I will continue. The article is saved here on my machine as well as elsewhere (i.e. before I bashed and slashed it down to it's nitty knees). Those facts are there, thats fine... but there is quite a bit more to put into it before it should be "released" to the general public. If you'd like to discuss it further, I would ask that you do so on IRC, if you have IRC, then let me know. I have just started a channel today for exactly this sort of thing. By the way, what you don't realize, is that part about "never wanting to hear about it again" is exactly because of the true nature of the other article. (except that on you and me it backfired).

Ste4k 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the way you appeared to have gone about it, by not signing those posts, put you in a rather suspicious light." I forgot -- I was sleepy; I almost always sign posts, but then I am the typo king. I was happy to see you or someone add the signature tags. I try to be transparent, at least within the Wikipedia community (I changed user names so that industry colleagues couldn't immediately see via Google what articles and talk pages I was editing and how).
I don't do IRC, but I do use e-mail.
I appreciate your fighting the good fight on ACIM, but I would rather work on some articles I really want to do right. I've slowly been amassing material.
--A. B. 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Resilient Barnstar
For remaining tactically neutral even after mistakenly pissing off a meticulous bitch. (staying cool while in the line of fire) Ste4k 00:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This means a great deal -- thank you very much!
--A. B. 05:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apology[edit]

Id like to apologize for the unwarranted threats and terrible comments I made to you and Rhaworth and francs2000 and others from the proxy(205.234.223.167) while it in no way excuses what I did, I have been undergoing some personal problems and used incredibly stupid means as an outlet for my frustrations, I can assure you that I never intended any of you any harm being much more suicidal than dangerous to anyone else and hope you were not caused any stress by them and correctly wrote them off as a stupid prank by an immature asshole. While this is an apology It is completely unreasonable to ask for forgiveness and I dont expect any, I am going to be getting treatment for my problems and can assure you that I am remorsefull for what I did and will never bother you any other admins or this site again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.253.130 (talk • contribs)

  1. I accept your apology.
  2. What you did was grave. In the U.S. threats such as yours are considered felonies and people are sent to prison -- with good reason -- for making them. You may still face criminal action -- I don't know if the police are investigating or not.
  3. One reason the law views such threats as major crimes even when not acted upon is the severe impact they have on the recipients' sense of security. A recipient of such threats has no way of knowing whether something bad will happen or not; they may modify or restrict their own behavior. In effect, when you make such a threat you take away some of another person's freedom. Do not assume the other recipients "correctly wrote them off as a stupid prank by an immature asshole" -- the police would say they'd be foolish to do so.
  4. I'm happy for you to hear that you are getting help. Stick with it and you'll be a much happier person.
  5. Just stay away from editing Wikipedia and concentrate on your own recovery and needs. That will be a full-time job for a while and Wikipedia's sometimes petty disputes are worth avoiding during this time.
Good luck and Godspeed
--A. B. 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: ADARSH SAMAJ SAHYOG SAMITI[edit]

No worries, better to let the community process run it's course as that makes the decision more clear. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice recent changes[edit]

You may be interested to note that the "tenor" of my talk page changed dramatically as a result of people like Tom Harrison and Ansell who both have shown a level of hypocricy which doesn't sit well with me. Prior to this I didn't see there was a need to actually be so explicit in having to explain such things... but when you get people constantly telling you to "show good faith" while completely ignoring it themselves, you reach a point where something has to be said. I politely asked Mr Harrison to discuss the matter so that we could reach conscensus but he feels no need to discuss anything, that his view obviously must be the right view and nothing more needs to be said. Such amazingly good faith??? Enigmatical 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've politely sparred with Ansell on an RfD recently and found him to be civil and reasonable to deal with. I've never dealt with Mr. Harrison. I wonder why the difference in our experiences?--A. B. 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you agree, people are not static. Their mood and manner in which they reply changes throughout their entire experience. Somehow I feel that you already know the answer to what you "wonder".... care to be a bit more direct? Enigmatical 06:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Mboverload's RfA[edit]

I am very concerned that Mboverload may not be getting treated fairly. See the comment I added below Cyde's on the RfA page --A. B. 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is, "Wow." I'm shocked that that did not come out in the discussion. Alphachimp talk 05:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's even more disgraceful than I initially thought -- see the noticeboard discussion. This is such a hatchet job. It's especially impressive that Mboverload stayed assertive but very civil in these discussion in the face of really nasty provocation; that made me upgrade my support to "strong". I'm concerned that so many of the nay votes would have been yes votes had they been aware of this. I don't know the rules -- I know Mboverload (with whom I've had very little contact in the past, btw) can't contact others -- can we? Otherwise, many will never read my links unless someone lets them know about this. Unfortunately it's 1 a.m. here and I must turn in. Ideas?--A. B. 05:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's 1 here too. I don't think there's really anything we can do...this nomination. Let's contact mboverload and see what he wants to do about it. Next nomination we'll have a bit more to say. Alphachimp talk 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're right. I am so very umimpressed. Let me know in 3 months when you renominate.--A. B. 05:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

I looked through them, not too deeply. It's possible you're right and Cyde is wrong, though I did not read deeply enough to pass judgment. And yes, RfA is at least in part a popularity contest - and Cyde is well-known. It's not necessarily a bad thing. More detail later if you care - it's 5PM here and I have to leave work. See ya. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will weigh in and vote one way or the other. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Srikeit 2, comment 61. (It's not butt-kissing, it's true). Regards,--A. B. 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Message CJC47 05:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Thanks for your positive comments at my RfA.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was really impressed by your candidacy. I voted against you based solely on experience; here's what I wrote:
Weak Oppose -- "Oppose" for lack of experience (I'm finicky about that). "Weak" - my opposition is mitigated by good attitude, good contributions. Subject matter concentrated on the Philippines is bad? I think it's good to have knowledgeable people concentrating on articles, not just generalists. As for RC patrols -- they're Wikipedia's first line of defense. They still miss the many subtle errors, spam links and vandalistic edits that slip into articles that only an editor knowledgeable on the topic can discern. RC Patrols catch the common "Joey is gay" stuff but can miss seemingly reasonable items added to articles they are unfamiliar with, such as John Seigenthaler, Sr.'s biography. So it's just as important to have someone knowledgeable intensively watching a cluster of articles. If still in doubt, I encourage non-physicists try independently determining for themselves the merits of the physics edits being disputed at Albert Einstein. ...I will enthusiastically support a second RfA after Christopher Sundita has accumulated more experience continuing what he's already doing.
I very much believe that many admins are over focused on "RC patrol" and just don't realize how important that second line of defense is -- editors knowledgeable in a topic with a long watchlist. As an admin, you will not only be a functionary but also a respected "village elder" -- I hope you can help educate your new peers on the importance of deeper screening.
Finally, to put my "oppose" vote in some perspective,I may have more edits than you but I sure would not vote for myself for at least another 1000-2000 edits, so I'm pickier than most on the experience issue. Based on all that I read, I think you will be better than most of our admins (but you may have a bit rougher patch early). So I'm glad I was outvoted and I'm glad to have you on board.--A. B. 00:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam[edit]

Hi A. B. I noticed your messages at several talk pages including Talk:Goa and appreciate your effort in fighting link spam. If you've found a pattern in the spam urls added by the specified address, you could consider adding them to m:Spam blacklist. Once added m:SpamBlacklist extension will prevent anyone from adding those links. Cheers. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about m:Spam blacklist. I've spent more hours than I think tracking this stuff down and undoing it. I'm glad I don't have to keep watching these pages. This is really, really helpful!
--A. B. 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know that the info was helpful. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

imho, we shouldn't link to url forwarding services on Wikipedia, anywhere. Link to the actual url instead. There is simply no reason to, and their abuse potential is too great (insert your redirect to legitimate sites, wait for a week, change the redirects to point to spam sites, without a single edit to WP: redirects as 'sleepers'). For this reason, I would support blacklisting ipfox.com and similar services once and for all. That doesn't solve the problem, though: the spammer can still link to his geocities page. In that case, we can either try to block the spammer, or to blacklist his geocities url, or both (only if he is extremely persistent). regards, dab (ᛏ) 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._B./early_July_2006&oldid=1160695107"