User talk:A. B./late July 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks! It really means a lot, and I'm glad the articles are useful for others. CJC47 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support!

[edit] Your mischaracterisation of my heritage offends me!

I've had to deal with it enough from all the Kerry freaks; I don't need it from you. I'm goddamned proud of my heritage and don't need to prove nothing for anybody to accept me. But go ahead and be the ignorant one. This is one redneck who ain't so ignorant! Attack, I double-dog dare you! You never know what to expect, but Kerry's freaks are driving my heart to severance from my home. It is humiliating to be pressured into leaving my home and hearth, but Southrons are so welcoming and loving--in contrast to Yankee multiculturalists. I'll surely find some place to pitch a doublewide, or build my own cabin in the boonies of Appalachia. Your words seem to accept this status quo; just one more example of us rural North British being treated like we are worth nothing by aristocrats. Rob Roy was a tragic hero. Doughface 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my comment on the Appalachia talk page and your heated response to it.

For what it's worth, I'm certainly not out to make you feel bad, just to help produce something useful, a good article in a reliable, online encyclopedia. So, please, tone down your rhetoric a little; I'm not your enemy. Thanks, --A. B. 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not personal. You have no grasp of the actual distance between what you edit and the truthful existence as life is played out. The summary is, that your facts are fictions to the world in which we live. I live a life that defies your dogma, as do those closest in my network. Please, take into account that stereotypes can have a negative effect upon people. I've already had a few ignoramouses revert my additions because I didn't follow stereotype. Now, they just sweep the issue and my own heritage under the carpet. I'm trying to stick up for it, but that apparently will not get me anywhere on such a liberal, Randian website such as this. Rednecks are just stock characters to the lot of folks here, referenced for comic relief and not dealt with seriously except for polemics against their percieved wrongs as poor whites. Doughface 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I even reverted your edit -- someone else did; I just commented on it. Please just assume good faith and observe some modicum of civility (hint: calling someone a "Kerry freak" or an "ignorant one" is considered a personal attack). I certainly don't see any how I'm undertaking some "leftist stereotyping" of your heritage. I also don't see myself calling your mother's cooking or your family's military roots into question [1]. Meanwhile, you criticize my beliefs and background, yet do you really know anything of where I was born, where I've lived, what I've done, how I've voted or what I believe?

The average Wikipedia editor probably is more liberal than you or I but I've found most make a serious effort at neutrality and good faith -- as do most of the very active group of fairly conservative editors on Wikipedia and the hundreds of editors living in states encompassing Southern Appalachia (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Note that all of these people are also only human; like it or not, editors of any ideology or hometown become less neutral and civil when one goes at them with uncivil remarks. Take a look at:

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Etiquette
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks

In the meantime, if you see factual errors in the talk page comment that I left, then by all means (civilly) contradict them with your own comments. Talk page comments don't have to meet Wikipedia's "No original research" policy, but if you could cite verifiable neutral data from reliable primary or secondary sources that would be great since it could also go into the article. See WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:CITE -- the goal here is a reliable encyclopedia article on Appalachia and that kind of work on your part would help us get there. If you can prove me wrong the encyclopedic way in the process, well, that's fine by me.

If you wish to discuss this further, it may be while before I get back to you, due to my schedule.

Cheers, --A. B. 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, the straw man approach works wonders on the feeble minded. I'm not looking for arguments. I had a statement to make about the light-hearted way with which you tossed aside an important issue for me; ignorance can be a degrading thing, even if unintentional. Don't go for the point-by-point thing, because that is not the point I am trying to make. BTW, I have already explained myself. It is up for you to pay attention to what I have said, but I will make an appendix here: I am well aware of conventional stereotypes of Appalachia, while even noting the deep end of lunacy that some of our people have taken up as a result of FDR and LBJ. I may call it lunacy, but it's because I have no use for those who rub my heritage in the mud. Perhaps they could learn some respect for the ways of Old Rough and Ready, Tippecanoe and the Hickories. I might ease up a bit, if they would but merely consider that they have fused Yankee fanaticism into their own communities as a way of getting attention or appearing enlightened. The new good ole boys co-opt Carpetbagging culture to prop themselves up; a case in point would be Wal-Mart. We don't need none of that shit in the frontier. I will suffer no polemic against my heritage; I am an apologist through thick and thin. The New South is a sham and pox on the Southern House. We do not espouse "Hippie values", nor accept them. This is just the way it is in our world, which the goddamned outsiders ought to understand. If they don't, while continuing to praise and insult in the same breath, then they must explain that they are sorry or butt out to mind their own business. I ain't even tolerated or accepted. Why would I keep trying to cash a check in turning the other cheek? It ain't been workin'! I don't need no "Whiteface" portrayed about me and mine! If you don't think so, you ain't a true-blue Appalachian! O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Forrest Gump are totally wrong! Doughface 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I will reflect on your comments. As noted above, it will be some time before any further reply.--A. B. 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is all up to you; your choice on whether to have visionary empathy or bat me away like some horsefly. The thing is, I did not strike first. I merely showcased about me and mine. That was just not good enough, so the standard, outsider view comes to the fore and supplants what was added for no other reason than people understanding a bit more about my heritage. Where does one go wrong, except "violating minor technicalities" of a convention steeped in systemic bias? I applaud your personal approach, even if your impersonal form leaves much to be desired. Incidentally, I addressed you because you contacted me. Nobody else put forth this effort at communication. Doughface 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Fiberoptics Contributer

Thanks for your comments and good communication, A.B. I will review the links you provided and will modify accordingly so it is in the greatest interest to the public. --Fiber-optics 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Andypandy.UK's RfA

Thanks for your your support + research/comments. Unfortunately people rarely seem to return to an RFA after the first couple of days to read comments and change votes, so the RFA is almost certainly doomed to failure unless several people remove their oppose and/or a lot more support. The way the !voting system on RFA works means that one oppose cancels out 4 or 5 supports. Petros471 08:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] baron of scales

hi alex

still waiting Quaggga 11:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] response

Dear A.B.,

You have left repeated messages for me to stop 'spamming' with links. I read your suggestions and have responded to them appropriately. At the time of making the links, I added what I thought were relevant links for richer content, serving the public interest. As I am learning more about Wikipedia, I understand now that this isn't a standard practice- contrary to the example Wikipedia pages I mimicked.

No links have been made since I first heard from someone who thought it was inappropriate, and I responded to your comments on your talk page previously. Yet, today I received another round of comments from you to 'STOP SPAMMING'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.181.10 (talk • contribs) 18 July 2006.

Comment: Technically true but disingenous comment since alternate personnas had already been warned -- see the full record at Talk:Timbercon.--A. B. 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, you did an awful lot of work discussing points with people on that RfA. I really appreciate it! Thanks! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RfAs are important for rank and file editors like myself. It's worth the time and your candidacy was worth it in particular!--A. B. 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA thanks

Hello A. B./late July 2006, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for supporting my recent RfA!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 07:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(Yes, you get the banner twice. Yes, you can delete one if you want. :D )

Thanks for supporting me there, I think 111's going to have to be my new lucky number. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 07:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for taking part in my RfA and investigating the oppose reasons thoroughly before voting. But as I've seen in past RfA's, people choose to oppose for (what I believe) such little incidents in the past.--Andeh 03:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was happy to be helpful. I don't mind nitpicky negative comments too much, but misrepresentation and selective presentation and obscuring of facts to scuttle an RfA r-- that really bothers me. I just don't like to see people get away with that sort of thing.

I know you'd do the same for me or anyone else in the future. Good luck --A. B. 04:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent, but you did. It makes me sad to see you say you are doing right when you did wrong. --05:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial site

The site in question has a bookstore. The admin who looked at it agreed that it was appropriate to speedy delete it. FYI, I have nothing against any of the orgs in question, but I don't think they have references to support the type and length of article these editors are writing. I would have no problem with a short, cited article, but repeating their own version of the history of Gnosticism rather than simply link to existing articles show they are trying to use WP as a soapbox rather than an encyclopedia... -999 (Talk) 18:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a problematic article and I think it should have been deleted. I think speedy deleting it was decidely wrong. See my final comments in the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gnostic Movement Incorporated. I am profoundly troubled by your actions in this manner. --A. B. 18:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To put this in context, if I had noticed it was a copyvio before AfDing it, I'd simply have speedied it without opening an AfD. It's standard process for such a new and extensive copyvio, to keep copyvio material out of the history of the article, where it is still a copyright violation. Certainly a new stub about the org itself without any copyvio can be created, so I don't see what the big deal is. There was no original content to speak of... -999 (Talk) 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You made a point about copyright violation, using .com as one basis for speedy deleting. I wrote up a response and by the time I hit "save", the article was gone. Read that comment and the one before it and I think you'll better understand my concerns. --A. B. 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and I made to reply about the commercial features of the site, such as book sales, but the AfD had been closed and I got an edit conflict. So I followed up here with you... -999 (Talk) 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We appear to have very different views about consensus and process within the Wikipedia community. I'll be tied up with meetings for a while; I will reflect further on your comments and actions. --A. B. 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that. It's simply that I am a very strong proponent of copyright protection and think that trumps the whole AfD process. It was my opinion that the article met the criteria for speedy deletion (wasn't it you who suggested it might), and the process page stated that the admin responding would review and make sure the criteria were met before deletion (i.e. I am not an admin and did not do the deletion myself). It would not, in my opinion, have been appropriate to leave the copyvio material in the history of the article... I've nominated a number of articles for deletion and generally have no problem with whatever the outcome is. I definitely believe in consensus, but there are certain things, like copyvios and violations of WP:LIVING, that demand prompter action... -999 (Talk) 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gnaa

you're correct, this article looks like complete crap; frankly I'm stunned the other editors are buying it. i searched for standard town-country format "Ngaa, Nigeria" via Google and I got a whopping two pages of results. The fact that there are some prominent admins registering 'Strong keeps' is particularly disturbing. I would consider posting this on the Africa regional notice board or messaging a few of the members (User:BanyanTree, User:Ezeu, User:Wikiwizzy, and User:Mark Dingemanse all come to mind). Once you read what the organization GNAA does, this article becomes an obvious farce. thanks.--gozar 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. There's about a 40% chance I'll pass through Makurdi on business next month. Time's not a luxury I'll have (and 40 km in Nigeria probably takes a while to traverse) but I have toyed with the whimsical idea of going to those coordinates with a camera ... But wait -- that's original research.

I left messages on several Nigerian editors' talk pages but have gotten no response.

If the average Nigerian knew what "GNAA" stood for and if there really were a Gnaa, Nigeria, I'll bet it would be renamed in a heartbeat. Talk about offensive! (Reminds me of my summer job in college when the red-neck Texas roughnecks I was with started singing "Dixie" in Douala's most elegant restaurant -- I just wanted to crawl under the table).--A. B. 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Nassarawa or Nasarawa State-- how's this state spelled? It seems even Nigerians vary in the number of s's they use. I corrected some spellings last night only to see printed matter with the other spelling.

interesting. what are you heading to Makurdi for? and yeah, i would imagine the mystical land of GNAA would be rather impossible to reach even if such a place did exist (although you can investigate as to whether one of the two or so rail lines the fed. gov. has so generously built traverse the area). also, ive never actually come across Nasarawa before (at this point the states have been divided so many times, geographically assembling a picture of the country's states is a useless). however, you may note the spelling on what appears to be the state gov's official webpage!: Nasarawa thanks. --gozar 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Gnaa, Nigeria has just entered its 3rd AfD.

[edit] Gnostic Speedy Deletion

Hi,

Trust me, I've been called a "process wonk" by fellow administrators for insisting on full AfD hearings in marginal cases where a CSD might or might not apply. (Most often, these questions occur under CSD A7, re: assertions of notability, but marginal cases can occur under almost any CSD.) CSD A8, however, is truly a different creature. Most of the CSDs (and the deletion process in toto) are about determining whether something is or is not encyclopedic. CSD A8, on the other hand, can apply to factual, elegantly-written prose of the highest caliber, worthy of any encyclopedia: if this text infringes on a copyright, it must be deleted as illegal to reprint. A speedy under A8 makes no judgment on the fitness of the topic for inclusion, only that the text in the article cannot belong in a free encyclopedia.

AfD is a good forum that does much better than its many detractors give it credit for, and I still trust it ultimately in determining encyclopedic fitness; however, as I said, CSD A8 is in a separate domain. As you probably know, AfD has never had jurisdiction over copyright issues; as a matter of reasonably objective law, and not community consensus, copyright violations are really a matter not open for debate. For its own reasons (ie., to avoid getting its pants sued off and getting shut down like a latter-day Napster), the Wikimedia Foundation, our owner, has chosen to take a very conservative line in interpreting copyright law, using the narrowest of fair use exceptions. The Gnostic case, though, was not a close one. The text corresponded closely to that on another copyrighted website; you make the point that the website infringed upon was only loosely commercial, but that point is very close to irrelevant. Commercial or not, the site so offended would have a right to sue Wikipedia (the word "commercial" barely made it into the CSD, and is to be interpreted broadly.) A proper CSD A8 claim absolutely supercedes AfD, and I would make that same decision anytime.

The silver lining for you is that the speedy deletion says nothing about the worthiness of the topic. Write a new article in your own words, sourced and referenced according to WP:V and WP:RS, and the previous copyvio speedy will have no baring whatsoever on your content. If an unthinking admin treats it roughly on account of the speedy today, let me know, and I will see that your text gets a full hearing. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the long and thoughtful note. Trust me, I have no desire to resurrect the dead on this one. It was truly a wretched article worthy of deletion the old fashioned way on a topic in which I had no interest. Furthermore, the topic seemed to draw very contentious people out of the woodwork with their legions of sockpuppets and strong POVs as to which school of thought was the righteous one. (I once asked my sister-in-law, a chancery court judge, if she ever wanted to use her gavel on one of the lawyers; her answer -- "no, but I've sure wanted to use it on some of the witnesses.")

My main concern was the process. I continue to think that the person who engineered this couldn't give a fig about copyright and was really just eager to shut both the article and fellow AfD participants down -- that's been his M.O. elsewhere from what I've seen. I will reflect further on what I've seen.

In any event, it sounds like you absolutely did the right thing for the right reasons, even if the person proposing it was really doing it for all the wrong reasons. I saw on your user page that you're a lawyer -- maybe you should be a judge. In the meantime, pending your appointment to the bench, thanks for being a judicious admin. --A. B. 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon64 and Blue Tie

Apparently I have offended you by opposing Andeh's nomination. I did not lie nor did I intentionally mislead anyone. I told the truth and I believe you have misrepresented me. It makes me very sad. Perhaps that was your goal. I have been a long time financial contributor to wikipedia, but I have never been an editor. I have tried to be a good editor, but I find that wikipedia is so full of vengeful and vindictive people... it makes me very sad. Maybe you did not understand the reason for my opposition very well. It was not that he corrected the signature, but it was, instead, that he refused to spend a moment double checking. (By the way, it was only recently that I can to understand that the Edit Summaries are important. I did not know it then.) --Blue Tie 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue Tie raised these same concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andypandy.UK and I have addressed them in detail there. I am not offended by Blue Tie's opposition to this candidate; it's a touch and go RfA and many editors I respect are opposing it. My primary concern has been that Blue Tie presented negative information on the candidate's record in a skewed pattern without providing requested diffs. I subsequently dug up the links myself, showing not very bad behavior at all by the candidate. The links belied some of Blue Tie's assertions.

It is true that I did not supply diffs. I have never done so before, because I did not really know how. It was only recently that I figured out how to do it. At the time of the request I did not know how. I was also not motivated to do so because I did not really want to link the two accounts as I had said. Providing the diffs would have linked them more directly, which I did not want to do, but I felt that someone would take up the banner and to it. That is why I was reluctant to bring up my objections. Besides, the objections were related not to the actual diffs, but to Andeh's approach to the problem. Somehow that this is my objection, is missing in your focus and would have been missing by simply listing the diffs. However, I do believe you missed at least one diff and I shall look for it. --Blue Tie 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Researching the links led to a secondary, tangential concern -- I found out in the process that Blue Tie was not just using the two accounts Blue Tie and Anon 64 to edit different articles (with virtually no overlap) but also a third anonymous account, 72.13.168.149. He was using the anon IP to tag-team edit articles with each of the named account. I published this information in the RFA, leading to the current contretemps. --A. B. 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This is where your largest error lies. You believe that somehow I have been abusive. This is simply untrue. And you have taken that assumption and made it a fact with several accusations. It is not that you have linked up the accounts, which I did not want to happen but I expected, but rather that you have made an assumption and let your anger lead your judgment. Based upon your user page, you look to me like an honest and reasonably concerned editor. But this time your instincts failed you and you have maligned an innocent person. --Blue Tie 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved my comments today to the RfA's talk page along with copies of Blue Tie's comments today. My comments from earlier in the week remain on the main project page. --A. B. 21:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is fair. It clogs the page anyway. I actually hate all my edits there. They take up too much space. I am too wordy. --Blue Tie 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am replying on the RfA page you set up. --Blue Tie 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have completed my reply to your comments. --Blue Tie 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the merits of your complaints: I am very slowly working through your many comments on the other talk page. Since I will be going overseas for a while, it may be a long time before I can fully address them. I'm still very concerned about that RfA and how you handled it; I remain confident on the whole that I brought more transparency to the RfA. Having said that, I am also willing to change my opinion once I've spent several hours really going through all your material, line-by-line and link-by-link, and I am prepared to publicly eat a plate load of crow if I'm wrong. --A. B. 16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, real life trumps Wikipedia life and Google is the all-seeing eye over almost everything on the Internet. I changed my own user name (my last name) when I saw it turn up on a Google search along with many of my edits.

As I now look deeper at your edit histories, I see why you probably want two accounts. As Anon 64, you are editing highly controversial topics that could have explosive consequences for some family or colleagues should they ever make the linkage between real-life-name, your Blue Tie persona and either your 72.13.168.149 or Anon 64 personas. The nature of an IP account raises further concerns should someone run a WHOIS or Traceroute on the IP account (if you are unfamiliar with these, click on the little links at the bottom of User talk:72.13.168.149).

Even just knowing the topics you are editing as Anon 64 could potentially upset family or colleagues, and that's without seeing the edited text. (BTW, I've seen your history but not really looked at substance of the edits, so I have no sense of any POV you might have). If the edits were all bland and NPOV, people could get still upset. For instance, say I had both a conservative relative and a gay relative; either one, unfamiliar with Wikipedia's neutrality policy, might get upset by some neutral edit I made on homosexuality-related topics ("you betrayed me -- why didn't you stick up for gay rights??" or "How can you tacitly condone such an apostasy??"). Or say you edited pedophilia-related articles, they might ask, "Why are you so obsessed with this?” then draw their own wrong conclusions. If, over time, your edits on talk pages combined collectively to tip your hand POV-wise, there could be even bigger trouble.

I did not raise the issue of Andeh's behavior and your multiple accounts -- you raised it initially and it was already a high profile topic in that RfA when I came along. You had already spilled a lot of ink (bits?) with your multiple longish comments that included references to the existence of a second account. A nosy outsider, already knowing your Blue Tie persona and your real name, could have connected the dots in a few minutes if they were at all familiar with Wikipedia and edit histories.

Nevertheless, I am mindful of my role -- actually digging up the links and pointing out the linkages.

I am very open to any reasonable steps you want to take on this. Especially since this RfA is now moot, I think the community at large, various admins and, if necessary, the Foundation, would be sympathetic to retroactive changes to the record assuming they were made in a way fair to Andeh. I think even Andeh would agree under the circumstances. There could be various ways to do this while still preserving, if desired, some flavor of the disputes about my behavior, Andeh's and yours.

Some various possibilities that come to mind (there are probably more):

• Delete all the links I added
• Delete all comments on this topic
• Change the other accounts where named to ("account name 2") and ("IP address 1") with no links provided
• If technically possible, delete problematic edits from different edit histories. (I'm not sure that's necessary if most everything else is deleted -- a nosy person would probably have to know something were there).
• If required, have a small group of admins look at all of this; render an opinion on various parties' roles. They could then delete all the links and comments spread across the RfA and various talk pages. If necessary to at least keep some record of various editors' behaviors for posterity, they could just put their summaries on these pages. ("Portions of this archived RfA have been deleted due to privacy concerns and the potential breach of anonymity that occurred in some of the comments. We can't share the details, however three admins have reviewed all the evidence and can collectively say that A. B. was a dick, Blue Tie a jerk and Andeh not at his finest” ... or whatever)
  

I am reluctant to unilaterally tamper with my edits on the archived RfA page and its talk page since they are "official" and I think I'd be overstepping my bounds. I don't think you or Andeh should either. However, if some higher non-authorities (such as several admins), yourself and Andeh OK'd it, I'd certainly be happy to see them changed or deleted.

If you wish to pursue this, I suggest having a neutral senior admin or bureaucrat review this and figure out the best, most equitable path. I will have little time to spend on this in the next month due to upcoming urgent overseas travel in an underdeveloped area with limited Internet access. When I do have access, it may only be by e-mail; they can use the Wikipedia e-mail link. I would abide by whatever they decided; they can do whatever they want with my edits and talk page within reasonability. They should not wait on me.

Within reason, I don't mind the consequence for me if a third party deems it necessary for me to be the fall guy should that necessary to pursue the mort important goal of privacy for you. This is just a hobby -- it's hardly the war on terror/cancer/drugs or anything else that might be bigger than the consequences of a breach in your privacy.

I leave the decision on this to you. In the meantime, if you don't want to follow this path, I expect to return to researching your RfA talk page comments in a month or so. --A. B. 16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerate words. I thought that this was more the kind of person you are, and was surprised to see actions that did not match my perception. In a way, I think I was too sensitive about the two names, but even so, I still have a "wish" to separate them. I want to say, for sure, that I do NOT want anyone to "eat crow" or be a fall guy. I have no interest in any sort of revenge and do not believe in or naturally harbor bad feelings. However, I can't seem to help it: When my integrity is impugned I feel like I just MUST defend it. Its a weakness. If my self defense is just recognized as reasonable and I am not viewed as evil, that is sufficient for me! If further, I learn something and others learn something of value, then it is better than sufficient. And I have learned to be more careful in my approach to RfA's. I have also learned how to use diffs. And I have learned not to rely too much upon memory. I heard a couplet once that I think almost applies:

Come on Now

The War is Past

And Friends at First

Are Friends at last

I hope that is true for you and I.

I understand you will go overseas. I hope you enjoy the trip, though you are going to Nigeria I think. (Be careful, lots of criminals there). Incidentally, I read one of your Berryman biographies and was impressed by the war hero who pushed off 100 enemy before being killed. Sounds like a movie. I was touched by his sacrifice.

As far as the edits, I am not sure what I want to do. But I appreciate your offer. I will consider all things. Having been on wikipedia a bit now, I feel a little less paranoid. I have had bad experiences in the past, but perhaps this will not be a venue where those will occur as frequently.

Again, thank you. --Blue Tie 00:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is can be such an all-consuming community all on its own that it's sometimes easy to forget that it's mostly just a sort of virtual construct on a bunch of computers. There is a world outside Wikipedia and they can view the inner workings at any time using Google. Take a look at:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=safari&rls=en&q=+site:en.wikipedia.org+%22blue+tie%22+wikipedia
• http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=safari&rls=en&q=+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22anon+64%22+wikipedia&btnG=Search

Give some thought to whether you think it possible that someone might learn your user name in the "real world". If so, pretty much everything is transparent to Google. If not, it's probably not an issue.

I changed my user name after finding my Google had something like a 100 pages with my user name on it (and it was not a discreetly chosen user name.) The good news is that Google's not interested in holding old versions of pages, so, just one month later, you can't find most of those edits of mine using Google.

Anyway, think about it. The offer stands, now or in the future. If you decide to do something, just get a 3rd party involved and keep me posted if I can't be reached within a day or two. I'll be around more or less until Aug 2 (but very busy), then probably incommunicado for 2-3 weeks. I'll try to check e-mail once or twice, but probably not Wikipedia. --A. B. 00:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:My RfA

Hi A. B., I responded to your request for further evidence of experience. I hope I gave the sort of answer you requested, if not, just drop me a line ;). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--A. B. 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

[edit] Gnaa, Nigeria

Thank you for the note on my talk page. Just to repeat myself, I wanted to let you know that no was offense taken, and that I believe you have been acting in good faith the entire time. My primary concern is that we appear to be in the process of up deleting an article about a real, existing place in West Africa due to our dislike of a particular troll organization. Please see the citation I've provided on the current AFD or the Gnaa, Nigeria talk page. Silensor 16:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I shared Silensor's concern. But your arguement is persuasive and evidence overwhelming. I have changed my vote to delete. Good work. Ifnord 18:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't reffering to you comment, but thanks for the note. This is a very contentious little article and I appreciate that everyone seems to be keeping a relatively cool head about it.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the info you posted as it is on my watchlist. Thank you for alerting me to it though.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Way to go with the information you've gathered. As you just noted, I've been busy with some other things of late, :) so I haven't had research time to look in one of those places with books. Anyway, I'm glad that we now have data to go along with the image. Thanks.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! You're to be commended for conducting some extensive research into the matter. The information you've provided enables one to put things in perspective in terms of population and density. Ultimately, however, I think the issue here is not the notability of the place, but how people feel about an article of a place is used for an internet group's purposes. This Nigerian entity ( be it a town, region, or territory, as it seems a bit unclear how to define this place) seems to be notable for the sheer fact that it exists (albeit not heavily documented yet). I think what people are bothered by is that half of the content of the article is used to mention an infamous internet group. It's reasonable to understand why a small "town" in Nigeria hasn't been well-documented yet. If one looks to Google Earth, the Nigerian detail pales in comparison to that of a major Western city (Dublin, London, New York City, take your pick). This lends to the notion that not much attention has been paid to this region in as far as cartography and such. As this is an encyclopedia, I subsribe to the idea that any town or region carries inherent notability. Having said this, your participation in this AfD has gone beyond the call of duty and your research has been quite good. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, good stuff. I in no way meant to call your motives into question in participating in this RfA. It wasn't my intention to pigeonhole you. You've obviously shown quite the dedication into finding out what's what. However, I feel that your research indicates that the place should be included in the Wikipedia. It's obviously a geographic place (whether it be a town, region, or territory), which I think carries inherent notability. One must ask oneself "What's the harm in leaving it as is?" Sources independent of each other have documented the place's existence, and it seems like a cool challenge to flesh out the article a bit and hopefully rid it of its stub status. In any case, you've done good work mate! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your note on my talk page (somehow I missed it yesterday), but I have read your painstaking analysis on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination). The discussion was closed before I could post my approval of your work there. Had I saw that to begin with, I probably wouldn't have weighed into the discussion. I also hope that you think I was simply being obstructionist in my objections: my concern is based on having successfuly pushed at least one AfD for an Africa-related subject that I later found verification that proved the article was about something true.

On the other hand, while I still believe in the general reliability of Fallingrain, I would never write an article based solely on material taken from there -- nor from the NGA database. The reason is simple: in most cases, this leads to nothing more than a plethora of what we used to call "sub-stubs" -- articles consisting of a single sentence or less -- that would likely never be expanded on. I've sometimes felt there is a need for a test for inclusion of non-Western small towns & villages -- not for notability, but of verification. (There are any number of reasons to require a cut-off for inclusion, including the fact villages often appear, disappear, or move in parts of Asia, Africa & South America.) I know with Ethiopian town & village articles, I have been following a rule that I don't bother with writing an article unless I have at least 2 of the following 3 sources for it:

• A NGA entry;
• A Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia entry;
• A third party source: travel hand book, travellers account, history text.

I wondering if something similar to this rule should be adopted across the board for other countries. -- llywrch 23:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I also think that a minimum size, subject to some adjustments, would be a good idea. For instance, a town of 5,000 in China is not notable, but in the Canadian Arctic, Greenland, or the middle of the Sahara, it's very notable. It might also help to have a minimum article size -- if all you can say is that "Bumpkinville is a town in Ethiopia with some coordinates" -- well maybe you should wait until you've got a little more, like population, etc. Otherwise, it's a sort of a geographical dicdef WP:DICDEF. In fact, modifying notability critera is mushy enough -- maybe it would be easier get the micro-stubs policed by defining them as dicdefs.

I wonder if Wikipedia allows notability consensus among sub-groups -- for instance, if everyone on the Arica agrees on certain norms, then use that in AfDs as a sort of informal consensus. I don't know enough about Wikipedia's functioning.--A. B. 00:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think anyone truly knows how Wikipedia functions -- not even Jimbo. What most people do is just put their idea into practice, & either other Wikipedians decide it's worth copying & it catches on, or they meet resistance (or apathy) & eventually abandon the idea. (Having discussions, polls & the other trimmings of process help things along & smooth out the bumps, but I'm constantly surprised at how much can be changed by just following be bold.)

But to the matter of this discussion: I don't think the critereon should be set to the size of the community, but your second point is more workable: if one can't provide a population statistic or a reason a reader would want to know about the community (e.g., "King Cipher was killed in his bath in Bumpkinville" with a source), then the article should be deleted. Much as I appreciate the research you put into the issue of Gnaa, Nigeria, I feel most Wikipedians would agree one should not work this hard to make the point in an AfD nomination; we need some simpler, more common-sense guidelines. Since posting my message above, I've been thinking about this matter, & as soon as I can express my ideas in a simple form, I'll write it & ask for your input -- as well as others. -- llywrch 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to what you come up with. As to Gnaa, it wasn't a total waste since I'm in the midst of planning a trip to that area in 2 weeks. --A. B. 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shiny (to quote a line from my favorite show that was cancelled before it completed its first season). Hope you take lots of good pictures & upload the best to commons. -- llywrch 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks - re The Gnostic Movement Incorporated feedback

Hello A.B., thanks for leaving me the comments and explanation re the deletion process for The Gnostic Movement Incorporated It is not so much thinking of you as an enemy but more frustration with learning the ropes of wikipedia and who is an admin, moderator etc and how to absorb all the policies etc so that I can conform to them. The copyright reason, I still don't fully understand, particularly if I had approval from the copyright owner to copy it into wikipedia. Would that still have contravened wiki policy? Was there something I should have done to indicate approval and thereby absolve wiki from any potential legal action, which by reading the few entries above, seems to have been the wiki admins main concern.

Irrespective, the page was created rather quickly, as like yourself, time is often not available to me, to spend hours writing or rewriting articles etc. I had planned on going back into the article to amend it and make internal links etc and hopefully make it conform to wiki articles policies. However, in the few days since posting it up, I hadn't had the time.

I appreciate your attempts to give me some time to clean it up and acknowledge how the speedy delete took over.

Whilst there are many encouraging statements all over wiki, enticing people to edit articles and make new ones, it seems to me, so far, that to actually write an article that fully conforms to the wiki policies would require an experienced wiki article writer, as I suspect the majority of people would not have the time or inclination to really study all of wiki's stipulations prior to making edits or attempting to write new articles. I had originally made the post, thinking it was inevitably going to be a 'work in progress', however, I do understand the reasons for its removal. Thanks again for informing me of the full story. Kind regards, --Clean2 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eluchil404's RfA

Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructive critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. Thank you very much for taking the time to chck my contributions and form an opinion of your own. I will strive to address the shortcomings pointed out by Tony and others and hope that by any future RfA I will be able to garner your support. Eluchil404 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too hung-up on "shortcomings", become too self-conscious, or get discouraged by your RfA. Just keep doing what you're doing, maybe adjusting it by 5%, and stay at it for a while and you'll do fine. You're on a good track. I suggest getting to about 3500, then testing the waters. Maybe you could get an existing admin to mentor you (I don't know if they do that or not.). Anyway, good luck! --A. B. 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They certainly do. It is called Admin coaching. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I certainly am trying not the let the RfA get me down. 57% support and lots of positive comments from oppose and neutral "voters" leave plenty of hope for the future, but I did strive to strike a humble tone in my thank-yous. People did identify real shortcomings for me to work on and communicating that I do recognize that is helpful, IMO. Eluchil404 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAvegetarian's RfA

No, there's no need to vote twice. I already had Johnny Damon support me and was informed that, "He's worth like, ten support votes." It's really too bad he forgot to login first. :)—WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My rfa

So why'd you feel so strongly about the oppose vote in my RfA? I don't know you, you didn't know me, so I'm a bit lost here. I can only guess you want RfA's to end as fairly as possible. Anyway, I've added a short summary of it on my userpage for the record.--Andeh 22:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Andy, call me old-fashioned or follish, but I was concerned that you weren't getting treated fairly. I understood the other editors' criticisms and they seemed valid whether or not I exactly agreed with them. I assumed the same thing of Blue Tie but I did want to see the evidence (I try to look at all the links cited in RfAs). Concerned about potentially abusive or stupid behavior on your part, I asked for specifics -- diffs. Then I noticed others had asked for this same evidence a long time before and had gotten a lot more criticism of the candidate (you) -- but still no links. Still assuming good faith on Blue Tie's part, I started looking for the diffs myself. The more I looked at what I found, the more I came to wonder if my assumptions about Blue Tie's good faith were correct. I also noticed that your candidacy had slipped from above 75% to below 70% as Blue Tie "piled on". Call me old-fashioned, but I just didn't think that was right. I thought it important for you and the RfA process for someone to get to the bottom of things. Here's some of the later back and forth between Blue Tie/Anon 64/72.13.168.149:

• User talk:A. B.#Anon64 and Blue Tie
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Andypandy.UK

I don't know if this answers your questions. I've come to accept that, occasionally, some RfA's are just going to get scuttled by folks selectively presenting negative info. Yours is the second I've seen that happen to recently. I've concluded since then that it's probably best to just let it happen rather than make a big fuss like I did. The Wikipedia community rapidly forgives folks that are (or seem) repentant and that stay out of trouble for a few months, so I figure you'll get another crack at it after a while. In so many other aspects of life, negative memories can have half-lives of decades, but they don't here. ~~----

As I wrote the above, I thought that an often overlooked and unarticulated pillar of the "Wikipedia way" is how it makes a virtue of imperfection and "moving on". Closely related to "be bold", I suppose. Editors aren't asked to be perfect -- just to advance an article some today, maybe some more next week, while knowing other out there are likely to fix typos, add information, correct errors. It all relies on the collective, incremental efforts of multiple editors working over time to continuously improve articles. Producing whole pages of perfectly documented, beautifully written prose all at once -- that's Britannica's goal; it's just not way Wikipedia works. Yet the Wikipedia way usually works almost as well, and often better. I think this "moving on" thinking has probably carried over to non-editing aspects of the culture, including processes like RfAs. Bad outcomes, like bad edits, aren't permanent -- they just take a little longer to get sorted out. --A. B. 00:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In your desire to do good, you did bad. In particular you made a number of false accusations and injured someone who was basically innocent. Normally people feel badly about that, even if they made the accusations in error. Apparently you do not. Everyone is different. --Blue Tie 03:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know I'm done here, RfA failed, what more can I do? Yes, it may have failed for all the wrong reasons but that's my opinion isn't it. And as there's no guidelines or policies whilst voting in users RfA's anyone is allowed to oppose for any reason, even if it is for personal reasons.--Andeh 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Thanks for the positive comments. They mean a great deal to me. I thrive by encouragement. Yes I must have started thousands of articles and improved many by now but don't think that I will leave particularly the Italian towns comunes just as starter stubs. Once they are all started I can go through and download the maps, flags and data boxes, translate the Italian articles and research each one. If I do a bit most days when I have some spare time I'm sure it will be valuable to the project. Many thanks James Janderson 07:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actually everyone should know them :-)

They're Policy Trifecta, and Foundation issues.

Kim Bruning 08:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You asked, then later retracted the question -- how did I agree or disagree with them? Your question was a good one, retracted or not:

Foundation issues -- I agree except as noted:

• Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering -- I see a lot of mischief perpetrated by unregistered users. I'd like to see at least partial restrictions on anonymous editing, although I have not thought through what would or would not be workable.
• Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, GFDL (working on changes via GFDL 2.0) -- in general, I agree, however I am not aware of what's going on with GFDL 2.0 (nor do I desire to study this issue)
• Jimbo Wales as ultimate authority on any matter (this is changing; see Arbitration Committee, Board) -- as a practical matter, this has worked from what I can tell. I believe, on prinicipal, that he should be accountable to the Foundation Board, if he's not already.

I also believe in playing by the rules, so to the extent that I disagree, I am content to work within them, since I'm certainly often wrong or poorly informed. I also don't think understanding the foundation issues should be a factor in RfAs unless admins have some special voice in shaping Foundation policy (I'm unaware of any such special privileges).

The page you cited on foundation issues makes mention of instruction creep and cabalism, with links to two very thought-provoking pages, especially for anyone interested in sociology or organizational behavior. I could write pages analyzing and discussing these pages.

The trifecta has stronger relevance to the day-to-day actions of admins and editors. I can interpret your question one or both of two ways:

1. What do I think of this concept for "packaging" or thinking of existing policies
2. What do I think of all the individual policies, guidelines and norms covered by each of these three core principles

There's a lot to chew on there, which will have to wait for another day. --A. B. 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my RfA

Thanks for your opinions in my RfA. Ultimately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your honest opinion was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you were looking for anonymity, suggest you're long past the time your top-page notice should have been removed. Changing your handle moves your edits, you can even have your anom (IP) edits combined by a sysop, but mirrors will still keep pages for a long while. So if you don't want it found on google, keeping your top post notice is counter-productive! Stop shooting your own foot! <g> Best wishes // FrankB 03:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Fortunately I'm not looking for perfect or instantaneous anonymity. As for the user name change notice -- I thought I deleted that 12 days ago on July 17 -- where are you seeing it? --A. B. 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)