User talk:A. B./April 2009

New Rochelle discussion notice
New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Administrators' noticeboard.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. I've left my two cents on the matter at that link.


 * Here's my unsolicited, more general advice:
 * You lost. Get over it:
 * Maybe you were right (I don't think so) or maybe you were wrong. It doesn't make any difference with regards to what I'm writing now. Give this a rest. You're not going to win this and you are only going to harden community attitudes against your position by flogging the matter.
 * That particular noticeboard gets a lot of attention so you got a wide airing already. For every person that commented, there were several more that thought all the points had been covered and saw no reason to chip in.
 * AfDs draw in still more comments; even if individual AfDs close with just 3 or 4 participants, a string of related AfDs builds a pattern of community consensus.
 * You'll reduce your credibility within the community on other matters as well by flogging this.
 * Watch and wait with an open mind:
 * Maybe you'll see you were right. Or maybe you'll learn you were wrong. Most likely, you'll see that the matter was more gray and not black and white than you thought.
 * Where you see you were wrong, be man (or woman) enough to admit it and apologize directly to the necessary person. You don't have to totally concede every point, just where you were wrong and where you may have acted unfairly. (I would not drag the where-you-were-right stuff into the apology -- just a "you and I may still disagree on a lot but I have to say I was wrong about xxxxx and I apologize".)
 * Where you were right, see if the matter is really worth your time, energy and credibility to pursue again. You'll already be starting at a disadvantage with a losing record from the earlier rounds. I wouldn't pursue the matter further unless:
 * You have lots of very hard evidence.
 * The matter is a big one the community (and not just the combatants) will be concerned about
 * I'd break down any further disputes into manageable chunks. "Proposal to unban xxx, topic ban yyy and do zzz to www" will tend to weaken all three issues.
 * Finally, Wikipedia editors are particularly jealous of their autonomy. I've found they respond better when I say, "I see a problem", than when I say, "here's what we all need to do because of yyy". If I'm right, they'll come around to my point of view.


 * I hope this helps. I've learned a lot the hard way over time, starting with this one. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users
I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Requests for arbitration You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 23:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question...
Just wondering why you made this edit to an IP talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 April 2009


 * Spammers often hop IPs and user accounts, so some of us that work with spam cleanup will tag pages that way. It includes a live link to the spam domain, so if someone runs a Special:LinkSearch on the domain, they'll see it's also been spammed by other accounts who may have been warned or even blocked.


 * The templates I placed also contain links to a number of useful tools for investigation spam domains.


 * If you warn or block a spammer, I encourage you to note their domains using LinkSummaryLive like this:


 * If they've gotten 3 or more warnings (across all accounts), I suggest you list them at WT:WPSPAM for further investigation and possible blacklisting. For most persistent spammers, only blacklisting their domains really stop them.


 * Thanks for catching this one! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

pokerverdict.com blacklisting
I see that you added pokerverdict.com to the local blacklist last September - what was the reason for this? I ran across this while editing an unrelated aspect of Neil Channing (some apparent-nonsense has come and gone, the last edit accidentally removed the "references" tag) and it complained about some existing URLs (no idea why it waited till now to complain). Also of note is that the site sponsors his tournament play. Emurphy42 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some prior discussions:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2008
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/12
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 5
 * User talk:2005
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist
 * I'll look into this further. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

HI
HIFireFoxUser2343 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Since you posted on it before it was "ready" to go, I think it appropriate to let you know that my RFA is finally "live". --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bristol palin
Hi, I think Bristol palin should be a redirect to Bristol Palin which I'm asking Gwen to unprotect. You had protected this article. jbolden1517Talk 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me.


 * There were all sorts of bogus redirects and POV forks created when the Palin nomination was first announced. Stuff was cropping up several times an hour and the actual articles were getting multiple edits/minute. As an emergency stopgap, several of us protected everything we could find that could be a Palin fork. We're past this point, so your request to Gwen makes sense. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. When you did this there weren't RSes on Bristol.  Today there are. jbolden1517Talk  16:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist
I am notifying you that I have request the removal of Bollywood Hungama from the spam blacklist. My request entry is here. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I've replied to your request with some information. I'll let someone else make the final decision on removing the links. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Odie, I've also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force inviting input from our Bollywood articles' editors. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Internal Waters / Northwest Passage
Stop editing my corrections.

I have no agenda, I'm just trying to fix errors and I'm doing research on this right now.

Look up archipelagic waters. They are quite different from internal waters.

Canada is arguing that the Northwest Passage is internal waters and thus they would have the right to prohibit all foreign maritime traffic in those waters (though it doesn't mean they would act on that right).

Archipelagic waters, like Indonesia, are treated like internal waters except that Indonesia cannot prohibit the "innocent passage" of international vessels without cause--they must keep the passages open.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.183.3 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Before making such changes, I encourage you to discuss them on the articles' talk pages at:
 * Talk:Canadian Internal Waters
 * Talk:Northwest Passage
 * Also, please use edit summaries when making changes; see:
 * Help:Edit summary
 * Whether you're right or wrong, you're making controversial changes and it's important to communicate with the articles' other editors; otherwise your edits look like drive-by tampering. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good points, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.183.3 (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs an article on this:
Jewel Brown, who used to sing with Louis Armstrong. Google her for more info but Wikipedia DEFINATELY needs an article on this. If it is already there, I'm sorry but please send me a wikilink.Bahahs 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)


 * After doing a Google News archive search, I agree. I encourage you to Be Bold and start this article. This search will give you refs to establish her notability so that the article doesn't get deleted; see our Notability Guideline for details.


 * Good luck and thanks for doing this! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Universe Daily
Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know about that charmer and his tactics. Lady of  Shalott  20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, in light of that information, what do you think we should do about John Paul Langbroek? I had tagged it as an autobiography, but I assume now that is not the case. Lady  of  Shalott  20:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd make sure it's a good, reliable article. Clearly this person is notable, based on extensive news coverage. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible that:
 * There may be some subtly warped information inserted in that article.
 * The use of that user name to create the article may have been part of an attempt to embarrass the politician. ("Politico doctors own Wikipedia article.")
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

about external links
Hi A.B., Its better to stop contributing tamil lyrics links than getting me marked or claimed or compared with a spammer. If you want to see how many people really need of these tamil lyrics, please verify no of people searching for lyrics alone for tamil songs in wiki. Tamil people love lyrics a lot. And to tell you frankly, its not even 0.5 percent of my total visitors. If putting adsense in my site is a problem for you people, i will very well remove those adsense too. Its a one stop place where you can get all tamil song lyrics. Thats it. The site may not have a copyrights from the lyrics author, well. but you really cant find tamil sites where the author gives permission (maybe english albums have) and i very well know many external links present in tamil film category are amateur ones. I cant addd lyrics in wiki itself, thats why the external link. i dont know how to explain. anyway, thanks for clear explanation. I thought i can add links after one of your moderator (euryalus) accepted. Wont contribute here after. Balajijayaraman (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I encourage you to contribute in other ways, but if you don't have copyright clearance from the lyrics' owners, then we can't accept the links, Adsense or not. Also, from your own personal point of view as a webmaster, you may find yourself in hot water if some copyright owner comes after you. Perhaps you can write the songs' owners and get permission.


 * As for AdSense, there's a popular misconception that we don't want links to AdSense-monetized pages. If you think about it, however, if we link to the New York Times or the Times of London, those publications have ads, too. The only reason we sometimes add AdSense numbers to pages with link warnings is for tracking purposes -- if the site-owner subsequently uses another account to add links to another one of his domains, we can still correlate AdSense IDs.


 * I wish you the best of luck with your new site. Regards, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)