User talk:TheOtherBob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 A Smile for You 3 Tiger Woods 4 Horton 5 Phillip Ramsey 6 That be a speedy.  :) 7 Brad Hines 8 Panc 9 Kevin Munger 10 UtzChips 11 Borrowed 12 Domaining 13 Re:Chattanooga, Tennessee 14 Response 15 What harms Wikipedia 16 Re. Marco Rullo 17 ILTC, joncojonathan 18 University of Chicago Law School 19 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination) 20 Dimensional Insight 21 Road articles 22 Whip Jones 23 Gladys 24 Pomous and Uninformed 25 Some follow up on our discussion at Whip Jones 26 Sorry TheOtherBob 27 Thank you for your support 28 Hello 29 Newyorkbrad's RfA 30 medcab 31 Good faith 32 Marco Rullo 33 Thomas M. Cooley Law School 34 Thanks for the welcome!

[edit] Welcome!

Hi there, TheOtherBob, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a regular contributor here, and when I notice on the recent changes log that a new editor has registered, I like to send them a welcome message - that's how I ended up on your talk page.

If you've never edited here before, there are a few useful links that you might want to look at, designed to help newcomers learn the ropes:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Here are a few features of Wikipedia that I find particularly helpful:

• If you leave a message on a talk page, you can sign it with four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically produce your name and a date stamp when you save the page
• The "Show preview" button allows you to look at what your post will look like before you save it - that way, you can proofread what you've written and not have to back and correct spelling mistakes, failed links, etc.
• You can create a watchlist for yourself that will keep a record of any changes made to a page that interests you.

There are plenty of other features and facets of Wikipedia, many of which I probably haven't even discovered myself, so have fun looking around and finding them.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! - Tapir Terrific, 21:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my talk page - so please feel free to talk...--TheOtherBob 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Smile for You

Thank you for your kind words (i'm a "he" by the way, Omtay=Tom, Pig Latin). I'm actually busy in real life right now and don't have time to do too much on wikipedia right now. However, I did want to say thank you and to give you this nice smile! --omtay38 03:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger Woods

I'm not uncivil at all, Bob. I only want to see properly written articles in Wiki world. This Woods article is slanted and biased.DocEss 16:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horton

Thanks for the alert. That article had already been speedy-deleted once yesterday. Not realizing that, I deleted it under cluase A7 of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, though I could have used G4. The editor who created it has now been warned twice. -Will Beback 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Ramsey

If that spelling is incorrect, you can always take another shot at the article at the correct spelling. --InShaneee 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks Bob, you were right about the spelling, I've fixed it :) --Samwise7 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That be a speedy.  :)

They haven't released an album yet and all the members have red links. Looked almost legit at first; thanks for catching that. - Lucky 6.9 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I swung by just in time. The user who insisted on posting that article had no previous edits, so it's safe to assume that he just wanted to be able to say, "Look, Ma! I'm on Wikipedia!" Sigh...anyway, I've locked out the page. Hopefully, that'll get the message across. - Lucky 6.9 23:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.  :))

[edit] Brad Hines

bob, thanks for the help. I am simpy trying to put up the entry for "Brad Hines" as:

Brad Hines is a Boston, Massachusetts based Internet entreprenuer. He is most known for being one of the original internet domainers and is the current president of YumDomains.com.

Brad Hines is the owner of several high end NYSE domain names such as nyseinc.com, nysetrading.com, and nyselisted.com.

Known for being a diverse nettrepreneur with interests ranging from art to automotives, he runs an eclectic array of internet real estate. He runs Autoprofitz.com, SkiZurich.com, HinesDomains.com, McGillArt.ca, and TeachBoys.org.

He is the inventor of the Sure Shot bottle bong, in 2005 he sold both Megaflow Beer Funnels and Sure Shot Bottle Bongs.

He has a degree in finance from Boston University.

[1] [2] [3] [4]

why does it get deleted?

[edit] Panc

Hi! I removed your speedy deletion template from Panc. I'm not at all convinced that the article passes WP:Notability, but the poster of the article did assert notability, having won a design award. I found a reference for the award, so that's genuine. As the article is written, it seems more like a candidate for AfD than speedy. Overcamp 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I am a new user--just a little blown away by how easy it is to jump into the middle of this--and I'm sure you're right about the proposed deletion route for this article. Thank you for your offer of help--I'll take you up on it if I hit a dead end. Overcamp 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Munger

Gone, thanks. NawlinWiki 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UtzChips

Bob, can you do me a favor and remove the comment on the Brad Hines talk page? It looks like the entry is all set now.

Kindly, Utz--24.203.42.57 00:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bob,

I thought the problem was solved? How come that message keeps coming up?

-Utz--Utzchips 01:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Removing deletion notices is a no-no. - Lucky 6.9 01:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bob,

Could you remove your "delete" vote on "Brad Hines" entry as the criteria you sited has since been fixed?

kindly,

UtzChips (my name real name is Gordon)--Utzchips 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm,

You are a tough influence, I like that. Here is the thing though, the analogy about Zuckerberg or Parsons had nothing to do with industry, I could have chosen Dan Galambous instead for example. It was about the magnitude. All Three are Presidents of their company. Niether zuckerberg nor parsons have donanted an Art club to a university either. In fact, based on what you have told me, zuckerberg's entry ought to be removed. It seems to mostly dicuss his personal life.

Kindly, Utz --Utzchips 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who Bob Brust is?

He is the CFO of Kodak. Not CEO mind you, CFO ( a lesser position as I am guessing you know) Kodak is also a lot smaller than GM.

Also, When you google "Bob Brust" you see he has done almost nothing. Rather than argue his entry should be removed, clearly Brad Hines is more known to the public and more influential.

I feel like maybe alot of this is because you hadn't heard of him before from a more indirect source. Just curious.. did you check the referernces?

--Utzchips 03:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who Bob Brust is. Sometimes citing other articles on WP can be self-defeating, because here's the obvious counter-argument: the article on Bob Brust should, in fact, be deleted. (So any comparison is pointless.) I did check the references, as I said in the AfD.--TheOtherBob 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borrowed

I borrowed that picture down the bottom of your page, it's awesome!, as per all the other things I borrow you will be acredited to it, cheers

†he Bread 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domaining

I will be pretty busy today, and there are other things going on, but I will try to keep tabs when I can. --BostonMA ^talk 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Chattanooga, Tennessee

Thanks for the tip. I blocked Ridigaho indefinitely. Hopefully, he won't come back using a dynamic IP and continue vandalizing. Nishkid64 23:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

He doesn't have the right to ignore another user. On two occasions, I have made good faith requests for him to explain what he says. He reverted my edits to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door with no explanation, and is now claiming I'm stalking him, instead of going to an article that I have edited regularly since it came into being. He has more or less stated that he will not respond to me. I am doing an RfAr because a highly respected admin (whose name will not be mentioned as they do not wish to be involved in this, at least at this time) suggested it after they ignored what they told InShaneee to do. The fact that I am initiating an RfAr that actually has a strong case does not give him the right to place himself above me and refuse to explain why he reverted my good faith edits. Why is he allowed to exist outside of a community? Why can he demand others to follow policy and be courteous to other users and then decide that policy is and courtesy is below him? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is counter-productive to have him revert with no explanation. It actually hurts Wikipedia to do so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What harms Wikipedia

Hey, I figured I'd continue this here (if you want to continue) because it's an interesting discussion and, as you pointed out, does not really belong on the AfD page.

Anyway, you said:

Sure - just briefly, I see two harms. One is technological / financial (i.e. it must cost something to store extraneous data without slowing down access to the non-extraneous stuff). If there aren't some limits, then the infrastructure does eventually break down. The second is that an encyclopedia clogged with anything and everything is less useful and harder to manage. I'll stop there, though - because I think this is a debate better suited to the discussion pages of WP:Notability. --TheOtherBob 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your first point is, I believe, none of our concern but rather that of the Wikimedia Foundation. Jimbo himself has said that, in his opinion, resource usage is not a reason to delete something (I realize that is far from being an endorsement of keeping every little thing anyone might add, but it also runs counter to your argument).

As for your second argument, well, that just doesn't make sense to me. As the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information, I fail to see how providing more information can make it less useful. As for being "harder to manage", could you elaborate a bit, please? Kurt Weber 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Marco Rullo

Thank you for contacting me. I'll keep an eye on him. If more (different) IPs vandalize the article in a short period of time, you may also request semi-protection to it on WP:RPP. Regards.--Húsönd 05:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ILTC, joncojonathan

Hi TheOtherBob - looks fine to me, I did wonder if it was bordering an advert or not. Ah, you removed the music per episode table - ok by me, was a bit of a pain to update every day ;). Also, I agree with the changing to surnames (Contacting Ippolito rather than Contacting David). Looked at your user page and like the userbox idea - can't edit your page to read the code behind it though :( presuming it's a list of templates?

Been writing in Wikimedia for a while (we have a wiki at home lol) but still learning ;) Joncojonathan 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Chicago Law School

Hi TheOtherBob,

I posted a reply to your message at Talk:University_of_Chicago_Law_School. Let me know what you think. :)

Jordan

--S0uj1r0 12:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination)

The poker joke made me laugh. --Oakshade 04:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dimensional Insight

Could you please take another look at Dimensional Insight? I found references and added them to the article, and I feel the references adequately demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road articles

Historical info is (at least to me) more encyclopedic than a sort of map; it's hard to write about most roads, though. Not a lot of historical data out there. For instance, when I wrote California State Highway 111, I drew quite a bit from memories of historical photographs I'd seen in the Welwood Murray Museum in downtown Palm Springs. The rest is (drum roll, please) a turn-by-turn description since I know the road so intimately. I may have to pay ol' Welwood a visit in the near future. Ridge Route, however, was quite different since there was a wealth of historical info and, I must say, surprisingly late in getting created. Ditto U.S. Highway 99, another bit of Lucky 6.9 "roadcruft."  :) Anyway, all you can do is to work with what you have and go from there. Good luck! - Lucky 6.9 02:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whip Jones

I've revamped the Whip Jones page and I'm asking for a RECONSIDER. Please see the discussion on this. Please reply there to comment on what you think we need to fix or delete in order to keep the article. I really appreciated you reminding us about the Supreme Court case, that section of the BIO has been updated and cited. It really was Jones who pushed that issue all the way to the Supreme Court. THANK YOU.

I think the correct term would be lobbying as opposed to vote stacking. Vote stacking being the other thing I mistakenly did, typing KEEP too many times. Lobbying being this polite request for a reexamine. :) - BMcCJ 01:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gladys

		The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
		For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pomous and Uninformed

Sir, my reference was not to a specific person, but a generalization of a group of people who are fomenting an unfortunate trend at Wikipedia. The comment was not addressed to you or any other in the public domain, but to another member in a personal message on his discussion page in support of his efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 December 2006 Kevin Murray 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, those were Mr. Murray's words... and I will just leave it at that, no other agreement or disagreement. I think we've all said 'nuf on the subject. BTW: I atteneded the school ranked number 300 out of 300 for party schools as well. Go Maroons! -BMcCJ

[edit] Some follow up on our discussion at Whip Jones

I really appreciate your deep and thoughtful approach to Wikipedia. Even though we disagree on the details we share a common commitment to this project. I had some time today to revisit your comments and share my thoughts below within your text.

1.It's generally bad form to solicit votes, as BMcCJ did on Mr. Murray's talk page[2]. Some people refer to it as "canvassing" or vote stacking. Please don't do it - it harms this process (though I know BMcCJ is a new editor, and I'm sure he had no idea about that).

This is a double edged sword. There are indicators which draw deletion-biased editors to AfD articles; like sharks to blood. It seems fair for an author to seek support, but not to stack the jury. There is no perfect solution, and dangers in both directions.

2 Please try to assume more good faith. AfD isn't nonsense just because an article you like shows up here. Those who participate here generally spend time improving articles as well. But they also improve Wikipedia when they eliminate the junk that shouldn't be here. There should emphatically not be a "stiff penalty" for being bold and trying to protect and improve Wikipedia, even if the person gets it wrong. You disagree about the notability of this article and want to keep it - great. Vote to keep. But the idea that we should "penalize" people because they disagree with you - I disagree with that strongly.

I’m not advocating a penalty because I liked the article. In this case I’m ambivalent to the subject matter, but concerned that unqualified or biased editors are tossing out AfD citations without accountability for the distress caused to legitimate contributors. I know that AfD is valuable in cutting down the junk, but could we say that it is better to allow 100 bad articles to go free, than to unjustly punish one good article?

I’m over 50 and write about subject matters not necessarily notable to youth, but from which they could benefit now or later. But if kids or techies are tossing out my work because it's (yawn) boring, that's a shame. I'm not talking flogging, but I do think that people should have to earn the right to tag with AfD, and be at risk of losing the privilege for irresponsible behavior. I do realize that this article was tagged in good faith, so I certainly don't feel that this is an example where a penalty should apply.

3 If people had to be previously familiar with the subject in order to vote to delete an article, nothing would ever be deleted. Those things notable enough for people to become familiar with them are...probably notable enough for Wikipedia. Stuff no one is familiar with (some 13 year old's Pokemon collection, somebody's friend's band) is probably non-notable. Would you really suggest that we couldn't delete that stuff because there aren't any experts who can comment on it?

OK, we are allies on the Pokeman thing; there is a lot of abuse here and it needs to be controlled. But to say that general familiarity should be the criterion for inclusion to an encyclopedia in my mind defeats the purpose. I grew up with a 1932 set of Britannica which I could browse through … To me Wikipedia is so fascinating because it exposes people to a wide variety of important and trivial topics. Since it isn’t limited by the physical constraints of printed volumes, I think that we can afford to take some risks with trivia.

How can a non-golfer evaluate the notability of an article on a notable but obscure golfer. Oh yes, Arnold Palmer is recognized, but how many kids have heard of Bobby Jones, and his Yahoo count is probably fairly low. So the article gets tagged and the writter has to spend hours supporting his position to an audience of Pokeman devotees.

4 And, finally - did you have any reason why you think this person was notable? Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't see anything about the article in your comment - only a call for "stiff penalties" for the nominator. So why, in your mind, is this person notable?

Mea culpa. Yes, I saw that all of the points had been covered, so I jumped on my soapbox. I think that the article is interesting enough and describes a fascinating man who I now admire. Why not include him? (please don’t answer that). I’m glad that I know about Whip Jones now, and for that matter it is interesting trivia that a soap opera character was named for him.

--Kevin Murray 01:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry TheOtherBob

Little insane spasm on my part there. Sorry.... And you change things very fast...

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi Bob...just wanted to say hi as it seems we are both confused on the Hinduism talk page. I thought it was just me lol. Anyway, I hope this resolves itself soon as it has been going on for days now. MetsFan76 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your extremely kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] medcab

Hi Bob -- no sorry, not you, the other Bob --

Are you aware that there is actually a mediation cabal? It's an interesting experience, though rather wearying. Sdedeo (tips) 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith

I do not want to debate you. I believe that you voted to "Delete" in good faith. In turn, I am asking you to accept this good-faith remark from me:

You didn't read my evidence carefully enough.

I say this because you didn't notice my name, and because you thought WP:AFD doesn't address insults to living people (it does). Please know that I am not finding fault -- I'm well aware that it's easy to miss stuff on an unformatted page as long as that one is. So, I fear that you also may have overlooked one or more of my direct rebuttals to the nominator's points. If nothing else, please contrast that editor's interpretation of Casti's New Scientist article with the excerpt from the article itself. Thanks for hearing me out. In good faith,

--Rgfolsom 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Rullo

I appreciate your attempt to avoid confrontation with this person, but in doing so you're both simply accepting an anonymous editor's word that he's the subject of the article and accepting his word about content in the place of verifiable sources. We can't do either. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see your point. My worry is that a rival could eaily claim to be Rullo, and ask for accurate details to be removed (I've seen it happen before on sports-related articles). If he really is Rullo, he should surely be able to give us verifiable sources for his claims. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas M. Cooley Law School

I graduated from Thomas Cooley, and I experienced the culture there. You did not. That makes me more qualified to write the article. Hahbie 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that my version is better because of my experience attending Cooley. For example, my version recognizes the fact that some students from the neighboring province of Ontario have attended Cooley and then returned to Ontario to complete additional training in Canadian law, complete the Ontario Bar Examination, and become members of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Also, Cooley has maintained its ABA accreditation for almost thirty years. It should therefore take its place in recognition among its peers: the other American Law Schools. Many good law schools are ranked by U.S. News and World Report as "Tier 4": using the language "the lowest available tier" is extraneous. Anyone who is interested enough to consult USNWR's rankings will thereby become familiar with what their definition of a "tier" is. Their criteria are arbitrary and capricious, whilst Brennan's are factual and egalitarian.

Justice Brennan is a visionary jurist and educator. The law school that Cooley has become because of him made it a standout. Many Michiganders and other people from the upper Midwest region choose Cooley over the other five schools in Michigan because of its unique characteristics: for example, the administrations of Michigan State, Michigan, Wayne State and Detroit are all chosen by the voters at large by general electoral ballot in Michigan. Those of Cooley and Ave Maria are not, because those law schools are private. But even between Cooley and Ave Maria, only Cooley is not affiliated with a University. Thomas M. Cooley Law School has one mission: to train law students in the law and prepare them to become attorneys, not to faciliate the provision of a law curriculum among a broader context of academic disciplines. This does not in any way imply that law students are in any way treated as, or expected to be, any less collegial as law students. In a Cooley class: (1) the Socratic Method is employed more often than not; and, (2) everyone is always expected to be prepared with every case briefed. If one is unprepared, one is expected to notify the professor before the start of class. The Cooley curriculum uses nationally-recognized casebooks, such as Yeazell, Dukeminier and Whaley.

As an aside, when Stetson U. College of Law would not admit me (after applying twice) and the then-unaccredited Florida Coastal School of Law was not an advisable choice for me, Cooley was the best choice for me, and even though every fifteen weeks I had to make the return-trip commute from Mid-Michigan back home to southwest Florida, I was glad to do it, because Cooley's reputation made it a more desirable choice than any of the Florida law schools that were available to me. Hahbie 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome!

After reading through the talkpage I made it a point to check out his talkpage and I noticed that. Thanks for the welcome.Mykll42 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bob,

I have put back the reverted quote on the domainers wiki. Please leave it there, it isn't spam. It perfectly corroborates what a domainer does by quoting one, the quote is explaining what a domainer does, and is sourced from the sister USA Today article that should certainly be linked to on this page. I think you are just removing on account of a bias because there were issues before from me where what I put up was more akin to spam-like linking my website. But I am a prominent domainer, and I often edit these domain links as I know more about it then most, these wikis are terrible and I have been slowly editing them, but the quote I put it perfectly helps anyone trying to figure out what a domainer does.

Kindly,

Brad