User talk:A. B./May-June 2006

Thanks re Dutchess County vandalism.
Thanks for the great work you're doing.

Please include [Ticket#2006051210010839] in the subject of future DC emails so we can easily track all responses at info-en@. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-14t12:44z

Ashe
Thanks for your comment on the Victor Ashe article. I was planning on adding one more paragraph -- on annexation policies -- when I had time. Acantha1979 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Acantha

La Tormenta
I'm not entirely sure why I did that - I think the version I was looking at was with the example image and it looked like a newbie playing around. Anyway, I sent the user in question an apology and removed my warning. Thanks for keeping me honest and on my toes. --Bachrach44 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Having reviewed the Victor Ashe article, to which I came after reading your Administrators' Noticeboard posting, I think, even as I won't revert your link excision, that you have misapplied WP:LIVING in this case, although your admonishment of the anon user was likely appropriate, if only in order that he/she might be aware of WP:LIVING and comport any future edits with it (inasmuch as it seems the user tends toward disruption and is decidely biased against the subjects of certain articles he edits, it's likely that he might make future edits that contravene the letter of WP:LIVING). There are a few things, though, that I think you might do well to remember with respect to WP:LIVING:
 * 1) There is profound disagreement over the application of WP:LIVING to article talk pages; at the very least, there is a consensus, I think, for the view that article talk pages ought not to subject to the same strict scrutiny under LIVING that mainspace pages are. In any case, WP:LIVING is a guideline and not policy, and reasonable editors will disagree as to its scope.
 * 2) Though Template messages/Disputes doesn't offer a clear prescription, it is generally thought that the template ought only to be used on article talk pages and not in mainspace; certainly the former usage is much more common than the latter (since it is a message to editors and not to readers, cf.,  ).
 * 3) The posting of a link to a statement of fact essayed by an external individual is emphatically not libelous, viz., because
 * 4) It is well settled that, while that, under certain circumstances, the republishing of libellous material may be civilly actionable or, in a few jurisdictions, criminally proscribed, the simple publication of a link provides an insufficient nexus of harm to be colorable.
 * 5) Assuming arguendo that the publication of a link can be understood as orthogonal to the publication of the actual text to which the link points, a publisher is nevertheless immune from civil suit where he/she/it can be reasonably confident of the veracity of the textual aversions (if only facially in view of the idenity of the author) and is thus non-negligent; here, the author is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor of Nevada, and, though surely a bit kooky and altogether sure to lose, she nevertheless commanded some support to qualify for the ballot and is a source whom we can legitimately trust.
 * 6) Of course, it is generally thought that any civil action undertaken against Wikipedia for libel of this sort would fail for sundry other reasons, but I accept that your redaction was undertaken in view of policy, rather than legal, concerns.

In sum, I certainly understand that you acted to protect the encyclopedia, and I don't think your actions to have been unreasonable (although I don't think we ought to remove the "offending" edit from the history); I write only so that you might know that the precepts of LIVING aren't interpreted consistently, and that their application does not always carry a consensus. In this case, of course, there's absolutely no harm to the project from the removal of the link (although it can be argued that we ought to reference the allegations--not as fact, of course, but as truth asserted by a quasi-notable individual--per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V, but if indeed our article ought to note the allegations, someone else will raise the issue), and I suspect that, were the information of legitimate encyclopedic quality, you wouldn't have removed it straightaway. The point of all of this, I suppose, is to say that your good faith is appreciated, that you seem to be doing fine work on the Ashe page, and that, though no one is going to object here, if you consider elsewhere making larger changes in view of LIVING, you oughtn't to be discouraged if some others don't support those changes. Cordially, Joe 19:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. In light of the above, I will drop this matter.--A. B. 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You needn't to feel bound by my singular opinion; even as I would like to think otherwise, I am neither infallible nor omniscient.    I don't think it's necessary for us to remove the "offending" edit (if only because, well, it's unlikely anyone's ever going to see it, and no untoward description was included in the edit summary), but neither would the project by ill-served by our removing it; if you feel uncomfortable with it, you should surely seek the advice of others (you might, for example, use the  template, which likely will draw administrator response much quicker than a posting on one of the noticeboards.  I suspect that our Wikipedia philosophies, to say nothing of our general morals, are profoundly different, as evidenced by our profound disagreement over how we ought to handle the putative child solicitation (I advocated, at AN/I and on Jimbo's talk page, for our doing absolutely nothing, finding there to have been nothing wrong, other than the misuse of user talk space for extra-encyclopedic purposes, with the conversations), and the divisions between us (generally, with respect to Wikiethics mirror those between good sections of the community), and so it's quite possible that another user will view the Ashe matter differently.  In any event, the reasoned and deliberative nature of your correspondences (especially on the noticeboards) is commendable and refreshing; I'm always happy to find project participants who aren't averse to collaborative conversations.  Joe 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming users
Hi, remember to welcome users on their talk pages and not their userpages. Thanks!-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching my mistake.--A. B. 01:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Project Galatea
I'm glad you found Project Galatea inspiring. I've kind of abandoned the poor project, for lack of time and energy, but I definitely hope to come back to it someday (soon?). Naturally, you can, and should, make the project your own as much as you like; this is still Wikipedia, after all :) --Ashenai 01:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Enaction
Greetings! Thank you for the pointer re the original editor of the enaction article. I check the history but not always the user, so I missed that this user was new. The other red flag, to me, was the link to the ENACTIVE Network...I guess the spam sensor got a false-positive on that one. :)

I have done three things: first, I changed my tag on the article to  and clarified what my objections to the article are. Second, I wrote to the editor on his talk page regarding improvements I'd like to see in the article. Finally, I tagged the article as a stub to hopefully solicit other editors to expand the article. Hopefully, the original editor or somebody else will be able to expand out the article—and with a good expansion, I will gleefully deprod the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Shadowman7
I suspect this user had some connection to the articles he created, but the film he wrote about won an award and they're all listed on IMDB. I tend to not think of blatant advertising as an honest mistake, so I'm afraid I tend to be harsh in that regard. However, I do send a warning the first time, I drop the hammer on a non-notable article. I only get really harsh when someone reposts material they know is inappropriate.

Anyway, thanks for the nice note. It feels nice to be appreciated. Educating newbies is a good cause and I'm glad you're doing it. - Mgm|(talk) 19:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kudos from a neutral in this war
Dear A. B.:

In the talk page of Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands you wrote:


 * I was impressed to see how neutral this article was (at least in my eyes). I can also tell from the talk page that it took a lot of effort and forbearance on the part of both the Argentine and British editors to make this happen. I know that wasn't always easy. I'm sure that to the truly well-informed there may still be some flaws, but I can't find them.

Maybe so, although the result falls a little bit short of NPOV. For your information, here follows an example from the article.

The table titled "Timeline of de facto control" claims that the islands were under Argentine de facto control during the early 1830s including the period of time when the Argentine settlement was occupied by the US Navy.

There is nothing new in this well known and amply documented undisputable fact. The Americans took full control, arrested and repatriated virtually all the Argentine settlers, some of them in chains. And this is still Argentine de facto control?!

For the sake of thoroughness, cf. say :


 * El 28 de diciembre de 1831, enarbolando bandera francesa, la corbeta Lexington arribó a Puerto Soledad. Una partida desembarcó y destruyó el asentamiento, tomando prisioneros a la mayoría de sus habitantes. El día 8 de febrero de 1832 el buque norteamericano arribó al puerto de Montevideo con seis de los prisioneros engrillados y otros en calidad de pasajeros. Todos fueron luego liberados en el puerto. Antes de abandonar las islas, Duncan había declarado a éstas libres de todo gobierno (res nullius).

The date when the Americans took control was 28 December 1831, and they stayed 22 days :


 * La corbeta permanece 22 días en las islas.

Even the facsimiles of the original American reports of the events are available online. (By the way, you might be interested to see there also the facsimile of relevant excerpts from Julius Goebel's pro-Argentine book, which in particular mentions Britain's internationally recognized rights of economic activities on the islands conceded by Spain under the Nootka Sound Convention.)

The missing entry in the table corresponding to that actual situation would be:


 * December 1831 - January 1832 [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|35px]]  USA

So it is very important and NPOV whether to put in the table the XVIII Century flags of France and Great Britain or the modern ones, but less so that the US flag is replaced by the Argentine for December 1831 - January 1832. So much for NPOV. Apcbg 09:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Apcbg,


 * I guess it depends on your point of view. I'm probably less of a stickler for details.


 * As I noted in my comment, "I'm sure that to the truly well-informed there may still be some flaws ...". I realize that article is not perfect, but when I consider the historical sweep of the sovereignity issue, I'm not sure the American occupation makes a lot of difference and I am impressed that Argentine and British editors have been able to hammer out a document that's very NPOV overall.


 * The other thing I wanted to say was how impressed I've been with all your Antarctica-related contributions. Thanks for undertaking all that you've done.


 * --A. B. 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear A. B.:


 * You are right that the importance of that occupation could depend on your point of view — hence to label it 'detail' is POV. The fact of occupation itself however is no POV.  (It was more than important by the way, it was crucial; what happened at that time was that Argentina tried to establish effective control which it did not have — there were more English and American sealing ships (on the average 100 ships, each with a crew of some 20) than there were Argentine settlers!  So Argentina tried to establish control by force (Vernet's action against three US sealers) and that was rejected by the US Government, the USA responded by force, which opened the door for the British intervention in 1933.  If that is 'detail' then the article could be reduced to its title alone.  The same 'detail' is the Argentine occupation in April - June 1982 — how come it's in the table and the American one is not?  The article is markedly biased, and I though it appropriate to point that out to you as you suggested it was NPOV. Anyway, I see that it's unproductive to get involved in this topic, and prefer to allocate valuable time resource to more constructive contributions elsewhere than correcting old wrongs, even though these become the source of considerable disinformation given the massive reproduction and perpetuation of Wikipedia material by countless Internet sources.  Many thanks for your kind opinion of my Antarctica-related contributions. Apcbg 10:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

USS Farragut (DDG-37)
Thanks for your words 150.214.167.153 12:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment to new user CJC47 last month
That's great to hear on both accounts. Thank you for brightening my day! Rklawton 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

mikkalai re: my talk page
In your endeavors to bring about a more pleasant environment, have you perchance crossed paths with mikka? He seems a most unpleasant sort, but given his only one brief communication, I'm not entirely sure what to make of him. Rklawton 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not dealt with this editor/administrator. From looking at his user and talk pages, he looks like a prolific contributor who has not gotten into many disputes (given the extent of all he's done). I see you reverted his April 1 addition as not fitting into the agreed-upon format. It looks as if he was editing in good faith and you, in turn, reverted in good faith. As for his comment, it's a bit cryptic. Maybe he didn't really understand why you did what you did? (My impression from your edit summary is that the date pages have an agreed upon organization and layout that's not to be fiddled with). It might help if he knew that this format is not based on Rklawton's personal whim but a project consensus.


 * I've got to go. I wish you both the best in working this out. If I can help, let me know. I'll be back next week.
 * --A. B. 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfair
I wasn't following him around, U of T is on my watchlist. I was wrong, and I left his revert in tact. As for the other article, I'll leave it a few days, and then put it on AFD. Ardenn 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ardenn, thanks for your patience with new contributor Slagish‎ -- I notice you later helped him with links and categories for his Toronto Region -- Statistics Canada Research Data Centre (Toronto RDC) article . Statistical research is not exactly my cup of tea either, but the centre did seem like it would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria once the article was expanded.


 * Also, I'm glad to learn you weren't following Slagish around as I'd initially thought. I had noticed that within one or two minutes, you'd both PROD'ed his first article and reverted his edit on another, so I thought maybe you were following him or had an itchy trigger finger.


 * --A. B. 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.  Ardenn  03:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ardenn, I always try to assume good faith but I'm certainly not perfect; see my B. edits on other users' talk pages and judge for yourself.


 * When I look at your talk and user contribution pages, I see a highly productive editor (almost 1000 edits in the last month) with an unusually low number of comments. Your Canadian-related contributions in particular have been prolific and very useful to the Wikipedia project.
 * On the other hand, when I hit your talk page's history links (1, 2), I see over 500 deleted (not archived) comments in the last 6 months, many of them very contentious. This includes deleted warnings, blocks and comments about 3RR violations. It's not a very good faith picture. --A. B. 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

potential controversial
Dear A. B.,

Thanks for your reaction, Glencoe is indeed controversial even, but apparently .... But anyways thanx for your comments, I'll keep them in mind secondly, thanks for the comments made on the baron of scales, I hope someone will wikify it. Quaggga 17:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

re Dan Sperber
No problem; thanks for checking (and letting me know). It was busy last night on RC patrol. :) --EngineerScotty 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

re: ADARSH SAMAJ SAHYOG SAMITI
Thanks for your comments - I've also supported your views on Staxringold's talk page. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Adarsh Samaj
I've restored the page per the requests. My reason for the deletion was it does not assert any particular importance, is not wikified, and was titled in all caps (not a good sign for a "real" article). I changed the Speedy Request to a PROD and moved to a proper title. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! I believe PROD is very appropriate under the circumstances. --A. B. 00:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for keeping a careful eye out as being an admin is not a sign of infallibility. Don't worry about the long message, it's always better to include everything you feel is important. I'm going to archive my talk page right now anyways (A new month seems like a good place). Staxringold talkcontribs 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)