User talk:A. B./November 2006

Roblog
Hi A.B., re your comment on the talk page, FYI, the normal practise if you agree with the prod is to use prod-2. This helps administrators who ultimately have to decide whether to delete the article, know that at least two people concur. I hope I'm not teaching you to suck eggs or that there may have been another reason you didn't. Regards &mdash; Moondyne 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I guess I'll just have to suck eggs for a while -- I never knew this. It would be good if they mentioned this in WP:PROD. --A. B. 07:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NEED SOME HELP
Hello A.B. I need some help dealing with wiki and I am unsure how to proceed, but reading your comments you seem to be a sympathetic type. Could I ask you some questions CONFIDENTIALLY? Anonypig, new Wiki member. --Anonypig 17:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe -- I'm pretty busy, both on and off Wikipedia. I looked at the Jan Cox page and left a comment on the talk page. My main suggestion would be to really get familiar with Wikpedia policies and only add stuff that's totally neutral and verifiable. I also suggest putting your proposed text on the talk page first for a few days for others to look at for discussion first. As for text you want to alter or delete, I suggest posting that on the talk page for a few days first. My experience is that if you're editing a controversial article, you want to have absolutely "clean hands" per Wikipedia policies. You also want to bend over backwards to try for consensus, using the talk page. Even if all your stuff gets reversed, you've laid the ground work for making it stick. The more you stick to the rules, the more it challenges those you disagree with to either put up or shut up. Either they have to play by the same rules or appear biased. The nice thing is that this dynamic, if cultivated, ultimately forces both sides to hammer out a factual, NPOV, encyclopedic article.


 * So what I've written here and on the article's talk page is probably pretty much what I'd write in private, but feel free to send me an e-mail if you think otherwise. --A. B. 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you A.B, I will follow your advice. Anonypig

Herbalife
Thanks for your comments on my page. I understand what you are saying, but I'd just like to make it clear that I was not vandalising or putting unfair POV- I will try to find a citation to back up what I said.

Plooft


 * I was not trying to pick on you. It's just that article is a lightning rod for pro- and anti-Herbalife warfare. I've tried to get it as neutral as positive, sticking to very mainstream sources for any controversies -- SEC documents filed by the company itself, recent (last 5 years or so) articles from major newspapers, etc.


 * There's a ton of negative stuff out there from the 1990s but the company has had management changes at the top since then, so I'm not sure it should be included. Alternately, if it is included, it should not take up a large portion of the article and should be prefaced by something like "Under a previous management team, Herbalife was involved in multiple controversies ...."


 * There are multiple anti-Herbalife websites. They are not appropriate references (unless they are hosting an article from a major newspaper that is otherwise unavailable elsewhere on the web). They do sometimes have links, however, to encyclopedia-quality newspaper articles that can be used. You'll notice that they don't have nearly as much stuff from recent years as from the 1990s.


 * The same is true of any pro-Herbalife web sites; they may point you to useful stuff, but they're not good sources themselves.


 * In reporting on Herbalife controversies, it's also important to be careful about who's engaging in what behaviors: is it Herbalife, a Herbalife distributor, or Herbalife distributors acting in concert with Herbalife? That's an important distinction and is central to Herbalife's West Virginia litigation. (Herbalife says the alleged misbehavior undertaken by its distributors was in violation of Herbalife policies; the state says they were in cahoots.)


 * Finally, I'd keep the opening paragraph simple as it is now and save any controversies (or awards) for the body of the article.


 * Ultimately, this is an encyclopedia, not a promote-Herbalife or debunk-Herbalife website.


 * --A. B. 17:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your support of my recent RfA. I know that you are very careful with your support votes, and I am honored that you would consider me worthy of the mop. If I can be of any helo with my new tools or just as a pair of disinterested eyes to review an article, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow up on User Discussion on Mobile Phone
Hi AB. Please find discussion opened on the source of the reference I used on the discussion page of Mobile Phone. Thanks AntB


 * AntB, you are probably right about my edit summary for the link reversion but I disagree some of your other comments. To keep all my comments in one place, I have responded to your comments here and elsewhere at Talk:Mobile phone.


 * I agree with your actions A.B. and have said so on the talkpage as well as re-adding the link to the register. --Charlesknight 11:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks! &mdash; Saxifrage

Spamstar!
(Shouldn't that be anti-spamstar? :-)  Thanks for the barnstar A.B.!


 * Hey -- I Photoshopped it myself. Feel free to change the title and pass it on (it's not a template). You earned it. Hopefully I got the licensing on the image I created correct -- otherwise I'll get a user page warning and you'll have a NonStar! --A. B. 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the spamstar! (It's even fun to say: SPAMSTAR!).
 * On the issue of licensing I think it might actually be problematic though: the original image contains cans of spam without them being the focus, while the spamstar uses only a can. I'm pretty sure that falls under "unlicensed derivative work" because the part being used is wholly of a copyrighted work, not just an original work that happens to have a minor element that is copyrighted (and this use doesn't fall under "fair use" doctrine). A solution would be, I think, to take those lovely and delicious-looking fanned-out slices of spam from the image and use them in the spamstar instead of the can. (And if you upload it over the current spamstar, it'll Just Work&trade;.)
 * Thanks again! — Saxifrage ✎ 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you need one
Obviously, if you give them, you need to receive one, as you are one of the most active in WikiProject Spam. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- by the way, let's hope I got the licensing right on my Photoshopped image or else we'll both have NonStars. --A. B. 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the barnstar
he he he... spamstar of glory... is that a new barnstar? I don't think I'd ever seen it around. I also see that I arrived too late to give one back! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats a great star and thanks for giving me one. It means a lot. &mdash; Moondyne 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And thanks from me too. I appreciate it. I actually do not look for spam, but when it is put on one of my watched articles, I can't help but follow the trail. JonHarder 23:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks from me as well, that's very kind of you! Sorry to hear you're away from Wikipedia for a while - Wikipedia will surely be hurting until you return. Hope you come back refreshed and ready for action. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Oppose Changed to Support Thanks!
 Thank You Very Much! (Open your card) → → →  A. B., thank you for your support in my RfA. In the end, it may have made all the difference. I know when I look at such things, that someone put the effort in to do their own research, and then actually changed their mind based on it, that means a lot more than supporting or opposing without explaining what made them make up their thoughts. I suspect it is the same for many others. I am proud that after looking at the complex situation you do believe I am worthy of the mop. Since we haven't really interacted much at all before, that makes the effort and opinion even more valuable.

As you may gather, my Request for Adminship is over, and successfully, not least due to your research and support. I hope to make it have been worth while. If there is any admin thing I can do to make your life easier, please ask, and I will do as best I can.

Otherwise, I will try to start the admin thing slowly, and not delete the Main Page for at least five minutes. If I mess up, make sure to come to my talk page and give me a good yell. Email also works, and is more private, but talk page will often get a more immediate response. If even that doesn't work, I am, of course, in Category:Administrators open to recall, though I would hope you give the yell route a try first. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Design from User:Phaedriel/Rfa thanks, which amazed me when I got it. GFDL.

Mobile phone brain damage coverup
Regarding your reverting of sourced material. And then claiming it to be ussual claim.

I have now added source, which is from faily express UK, written by kathy moran, and that is a reliable source. Editing with IP or not, in the future i will look to see if that fact, which is very important still stands there, and thank you for your concern of citing sources to the material in wiki. --213.113.243.140 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Universal Powerline Association
Hi A.B. Thanks for the supporting messages on my discussion page. My first page Universal Powerline Association. I am concerned because eliminating this page and not eliminating the alternative page for HomePlug would cause a NPOV problem. I am mystified. Can you advise how to move forward?--Upaplc 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I've responded at these locations:
 * User talk:Upaplc
 * Articles for deletion/Universal Powerline Association
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Universal Powerline Association
 * User talk:RHaworth
 * I have to hit the road -- I'm sorry I can't help more at this time. --A. B. 13:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look in to this --Upaplc 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) I noticed your edit, and I just wanted to point out that the edit refers to the Operation section of this article and not the article in general. I just thought that this bit of the article was rather techy... no offense intended. In any case I am following the guideline you pasted on my talk page now and staying hands off.--Upaplc 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the email
Noted and actioned! Cheers. &mdash; Moondyne 00:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ??? --A. B. 04:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? I have no idea either. &mdash; Moondyne 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Appalachia
Glad to hear you've been working on the Appalachia page! It's one I've long wanted to see improved, but felt it needed more than just copyediting but some larger structural reworking; thus I never got around to doing anything with it myself. Plus it is a large and sometimes complex topic, and I don't quite feel I understand the region well enough, though I'm getting a better handle on its geography and early history at least. I haven't looked at your edits closely yet, but will when I get the time, and perhaps try my hand at improving the page too. Just wanted to first say thanks for working on it! Pfly 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I was happy to finally get (some) time to work on this. I'm always a bit shy about wholesale changes in an article, so I appreciate your looking at it when you get the chance.


 * Appalachia's about a lot more than coal, so I was sorry to only get as far as a paragraph about coal, then have to put aside more work. Feel free to take on timber, paper, manufacturing or especially tourism and real estate development. Also, while an earlier editor criticized the Appalachian Regional Commission for over-reliance on infrastructure investments, the fact is decent highway access has been an economic godsend to hundreds of formerly isolated communities, so transportation should get an important mention -- at least as big as the paragraph on coal. --A. B. 05:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Harry M. Caudill/Appalachian Regional Commission
Hi A.B. You wrote: "With the Caudill article, I was concerned about NPOV and general structure -- I just haven't seen amazon-style discussions in other authors' articles. Maybe the WikiProject Books folks might have some ideas on this -- I left a note there."


 * In the Harry M. Caudill article, I had made a "discussion" section, not as a discussion between editors, but trying to move material I had not written into a new section -- the material did not have its own section and was floating around external links. So it really isn't necessary, unless cited by the original contributor. Thanks. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)


 * As far as I can tell, this material was added by User:68.0.240.15 in the revision to the article on Harry M. Caudill: Revision as of 17:46, 15 November 2005. Agreed that it's a bit suspicious and uncited. It should be left out for now. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)


 * Thanks for the explanations. Somehow I incorrectly thought these things were your idea -- they just seemed so out of character for your typical, very encyclopedic work that I was confused.


 * Also, while we're on an Appalachian riff, can you take a look at the Appalachia article? I made some major changes to clean up longstanding POV issues; I'm always a bit concerned when I go off and make big changes to big articles, so some peer review would be useful. Also the economy section needs further expansion -- I only got as far as cranking out one paragraph about coal after about a lot of research (on top of some pre-existing knowledge of coal mining in Appalachia). --A. B. 18:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi A.B. Thanks for your kind response. We've got that bit sorted out now with the Caudill article. A first glance at the Appalachia article shows it reads better. Will have a more serious look later. Hmm. Caudill's book has a section on coal mining in the Cumberlands. Best Wishes and thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements can be good.
Without disagreement, it's often difficult to critically analyze anything, especially in an atmosphere where groupthink consensus is the highest goal. I certainly bear no one any malice. Your anti-vandalism messages page is far funnier than I am, and I may try to think up a box or two. Happy editing, -- Elaragirl | | | | | | Talk 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just learned that according to Wikipedia Review, I'm not very funny at all -- and a "rogue" editor to boot! I kind of like the rogue editor part. --A. B. 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SPAM?
What do you consider spam? I think those links in LAN gaming center are informative, also dmoz is completely unreliable. Freakdomination 04:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You’ve been told multiple times by multiple people that your link additions are inappropriate. Furthermore, you’ve taken to vandalizing articles.
 * Look at External links -- this contains Wikipedia's rules. Follow them.


 * This whole issue has been thoroughly gone over already:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146
 * Talk:LAN gaming center
 * User talk:Freakdomination
 * as for your vandalism several hours ago, refer to:
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * Vandalism
 * Cheers, --A. B. 06:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Appalachian Mountains
A.B.: Since I agree with your observations that "content contributors are the most valuable members" of Wikipedia and we should take pains to help newcomers who are trying to submit content, I wanted to make you aware that an addition by 74.106.186.175 that you reverted may have been legitimate, even though it was only supported by a link to a spamdexing/Adsense site. Please see my discussion on the Appalachain Mountains Talk Page. Tlmclain | Talk 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for researching this!


 * For more information on 74.106.186.175, see a discussion of his contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. He's followed a trajectory very similar to that described by "bill perry" in a comment responding to "Revenue Girl's" blog article, "Wikipedia Links: How to Get Them and How to Keep Them":
 * "One idea I’ve had, that I’ve yet to try, is to remove all stuff like adsense ads during the time you are trying ot get the link to stay. I use wordpress, so whenever I want to temp disable adsense, I actually put it in a PHP wrapper in my template files, then comment it out with PHP comments. This prevents the ads from serving, but also removes all of the adsense code itself from the source, should the moderators look at that."
 * Based on our research, this is not the same spammer but he is doing a very good job (better than "bill perry") of getting links into Wikipedia under the radar screen, usually as harder-to-spot footnotes rather than more obvious external links. He's also using other IP addresses, which some of us are still trying to figure out. The specific pages he links to on his "scraper sites" may have no ads, but the other pages may be mostly ads with just a little article text (possibly copyright violations of others' work). He's also doing a good job of search engine postioning. He's registered at least 13 additional domains and built more scraper sites which he's probably holding back in order to establish "Google trust", so I expect more spam. He may possibly be using open proxies to do all this, since that IP address is in Canada, but he's apparently based in Iowa. This has been going on for quite a while, but we only just learned about it in the last 24 hours. I haven't even had time to revert and warn (my day job interferes) --A. B. 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you step through the contributions for the IP address above plus those for 74.106.179.56 (talk • contribs), then look at the linked-to pages, you'll see the pattern. Only Adsense sites owned by one person are getting linked to.--A. B. 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha - the plot thickens. It does appear that he may be promoting Adsense blogs instead of adding content it good faith. I guess we'll see what happens next. Between my post on the Appalachain Mountains Talk Page and his talk page, he now knows how to post and document the content properly. If he continues to post links to blogs, then we'll know. Tlmclain | Talk 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This guy is so slick, I'll bet he never uses that IP address again and moves on to another. Trust me, he understands Wikipedia, the rules, the processes, posting and documenting better than I ever will. The only way we even spotted him is that I (one of the few active WP:SPAM volunteers) am interested in Appalachian geology and was intrigued by his post, which seems to fly in the face of everything heretofore understood about the Appalachians. He's been slipping in spam for many weeks and not getting spotted at all. --A. B. 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The theory intrigued me as well, which is why I did the research to try to find the underlying source. I had been aware of the presence of some of the same rock types that are found in the Applachians in Europe and even Africa, but this was a newer twist.  I must confess that most of my knowledge of geology is quite stale (I refuse to calculate how many years it has been since I studied geology as an undergraduate).  In that regard, since you profess at least a passing passion for Appalachian geology and demonstrate a certain level of expertise, I will leave it to you to determine whether this "revolutionary new theory" should be incorporated in Wikipedia articles.  I am unable to tell whether it is a fringe idea or one that is gaining acceptance; however, it does appear that there may have been at least one presentation of papers related to this.  Tlmclain  | Talk 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhhh ... you flatter me. Interest yes, but certainly not "more" than a passing knowledge and an equally bygone undergaduate course or two myself. If there has been a peer-reviewed paper published, but that's all so far, then I would say the new theory should be mentioned, but perhaps given only one or two sentences until there is greater acceptance. I've situations sometimes occur, even with non-controversial stuff in Wikipedia, where one idea or one aspect of a topic gets higher coverage in an article not because of POV-pushing but because some editors are especially knowledgeable of or interested in a particular slice of a subject. I've seen the Submarine article veer from one interest to another -- women on subs, deep sea submersibles, pre-1900 subs, etc. Sometimes, you'd almost think the German U-boats were a blip in the history of submarines. So for that reason, I don't think this new theory should get a lot of space ... yet.
 * I've seen that you have unusually good editorial instincts and I know you'll figure it out even without a brand-new geology degree!
 * I'd like to research and write more articles, but I get to edit Wikipedia in little bursts. For now, I exercise my research skills mostly by trying to figure out spammers and their patterns. It's interesting. Many are dumb, but the one we found is very smooth. Google ranks Wikipedia highly, so our outward bound links are valuable and trusted. Some links left unreverted in Wikipedia for just a few weeks may be worth hundreds or thousands of dollars in increased site rankings and site traffic. The effect can linger additional weeks after reversion, too. This guy embeds his links in what appears to be useful text and adds just a link or two per week from any one address. He looks like an editor, not a spammer, until you look really closely at one edit's link, then start working backwards.
 * --A. B. 23:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now who is flattering whom? It is quite an overstatement to say that I have "unusually good editorial instincts." In reality, my short Wikipedia experience has been more like what you described with respect to the Submarine article – veering from one topic of interest to another.  Its amazing how you start one article, then notice related articles that need help or need to be created and, before you know it, find yourself miles away from where you started.  In any event, I have enjoyed our dialogue.  I may take the weekend off and return to editing next week.  Who knows, I may try to get back in touch with my geology roots and edit the Appalachian geology entry to include the “new theory.”  Tlmclain  | Talk 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles Burlingame
Hey, Thanks for letting me know - I put a comment on the deletion review page. Its funny, I really thought you had the wrong person when you implied that I created that page, but you were right. I had just completely forgotton about it. Fresheneesz 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Another well-deserved barnstar

 * Thank you so very much! --A. B. 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WT:WPSPAM
I saw on your comment on my talk page that you read my blogpost :). I can get very annoyed by edits which screw up articles, solely on the basis of wanting to remove spam... I could provide a readinglist, but i think it would be wiser to be more prudent in editing whole articles, and start with removing the linkspam of the external link section of a great lot of those pages... It seems Wikipedia need some SEO's that are white, don't need to spam, and yet write good articles about SEO on wikipedia. IMHO, Jaimie Sirovich did just that... --Jdevalk 13:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When I'm working on spam, it's usually some sort of what I would call campaigned spam -- one person with virtually no edit history except adding links to their web sites.


 * Some embed their links with some useful text, but the goal remains spam. And they're supporting the assertions with links to their blog, which is a scaper site -- i.e., there was another site (acceptable per WP:EL) they could have linked to, but that wasn't their point. In fact, they were likely violating that other site's copyright. So in those cases, I just delete the link and move on to the next article they spammed. Yes, that leaves an unsupported assertion in the text, but I leave it for someone else to fix.


 * Again, I'm only doing this when I'm pursuing a campaign of links. When I'm editing an article under other circumstances, I'm usually a bit more circumspect. Also, as a volunteer at WT:WPSPAM, I'm interested in bad faith stuff, not enforcing WP-wide adherence to WP:EL -- see my comments there about religioustolerance do org.


 * Finally, if I'm pursuing one campaign's spam, I may be deleting that editor's spam links while leaving others on the page -- I'm just going from page to page fairly quickly. If anyone ever complains I'm picking on them, I encourage them to go delete their competitor's links as well, assuming they violate WP:EL.


 * I don't think I've messed with the SEO articles but I might have.


 * Anyway, I encourage you to edit away on those. I also suggest you follow WP:EL scrupulously there, which would probably include not linking to some useful blog posts. I'm not saying this as a "link-nazi" but rather because so many people watching those articles are so link-sensitized: either they're ready to post any dubious link they think if they see an opening ... or ... they're annoyed and touchy already that they'd delete a link to even the BBC as spam. I've got to run, but I also have some ideas on how to legitimately include significant blog content in a way that meets the letter and spirit of WP:EL. --A. B. 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts on those blogs would be appreciated, since the SEO world mainly talks through blogs. I've been going around some of the SEO articles, and could edit even "harder" but I wouldn't want to do that without some backup and regular checks, since these are such sensitive sections... --Jdevalk 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

University of Mary Washington
A.B.,

If you read the discussion carefully, I have agreed not to add a link to the website I run any longer since I recognize it is a violation of conflict of interest rules. Back off. "It's your call." (A.B.) I don't think threats are a part of a good Wikipedia community? Analyzethis 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and threatening new users like me is pithy and stupid. No one gives a damn, A.B.Analyzethis 17:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Analyzethis, your history here at Wikipedia speaks for itself. Relevant links:
 * User talk:Analyzethis
 * User contributions - Analyzethis
 * User talk:Metros232
 * User talk:199.111.70.130
 * User talk:Takeel
 * User talk:Takeel
 * User talk:199.111.85.50
 * User contributions - 199.111.85.50
 * User talk:199.111.74.57
 * User contributions - 199.111.74.57
 * User talk:67.131.148.171
 * User contributions - 67.131.148.171
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
 * Talk:University of Mary Washington
 * --A. B. 20:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk:199.111.71.54
 * [User contributions - 199.111.71.54
 * --A. B. 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk:68.202.109.43
 * User contributions - 68.202.109.43
 * --A. B. 15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Final observations for Analyzethis:
 * You have said you will encourage others to add Middlesell links
 * You have complained of personal attacks by others when they did no such thing
 * You have deleted others comments from article talk pages
 * You have deleted material from others' talk pages
 * You have altered others' comments, removing inconvenient truths
 * You have accused those who have removed your link of vandalism
 * You added your links repeatedly; example:
 * --A. B. 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: I consider this comment a threat. Also, I wish you wouldn't break the rules.  Please see the following: Please do not bite the newcomers, Etiquette,  Assume good faith.  One would think that nice people such as yourselves wouldn't be so harsh to a newcomer like me.  Your rudeness is unbecoming.67.131.148.171 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (Get a life)

195.194.74.26
I reported at WP:AIV for continuing to vandalize after still another last warning earlier this week. Since I have found it so hard to get vandals blocked even when they meet all the criteria listed on the WP:AIV page, I went ahead and gave him another "last warning". You then declined to block this vandal with the comment "1 already warned. LIST MT". I have reverted my warning -- can you go ahead and block this person. They will be back again tomorrow, and the day after that and the day after that ad inifitium. It would be nice to get a break of at least a few days from cleaning up after them. --A. B. 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your frustration. The problem is that the vandalism coming from that IP just isn't that impressive.  A single edit a half-hour ago, two edits five hours prior, and only a single edit in the six days prior to that.  If you go back much further than that, you actually find some possibly useful edits:, , and even reverting vandalism xyrself: .  Blocking this IP wouldn't do much good and may even do some harm.  A better example of chronic vandalism is this contribution list.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As for Lanlivery, what in the world is going on? Is any of the recent additions true?  Looks like that article needs to be reverted and semi-protected for a short period.  Let me know.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been worked over thoroughly. I'm debating whether to warn any of the vandals or toss it off as a lost cause. I am cleaning up the article, however.


 * It's so embarrassing for Wikipedia to see articles stay like that for multiple hours or days. It belies the confidence that so many have in recent changes patrols and anti-vandalism bots. You'll see some of them diligently, conscientiously were working to revert vandalism, only they just reverted back to earlier versions of junk. --A. B. 16:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see your revert and I've sprotected. That was impressive.  You should head right over to WP:RFPP when stuff like that breaks out.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for protecting it. I have had about as much luck with RFPP in the past as with AIV. --A. B. 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you step through the history, it appears to have been a coordinated attack on two, non-notable real people, one named Phillips (linked to the Satan article) and one named Bonney (linked to the Wanker article). --A. B. 16:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't look that close. I just knew it was a bunch of people acting like idiots.  When there's one person acting like an idiot, you block them - when it's multiple, protection is the way to go.  (Probably short term in this case since it's hard to believe this is a common vandalism target - very odd). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I debated whether or not to use the Defwarn template but settled for relatively mild vandalism warnings. I'm not an admin, so I was concerned I might get in trouble myself for perhaps crossing No legal threats. --A. B. 16:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With IPs you never know if they are shared or dynamically allocated. Last warnings that are more than a few days old are usually considered to have expired, unless it's evident from the edits that there is a pattern. Thus, block requests will likely fail in cases like this. There's not much we can do about these IPs if we want to remain an open wiki.


 * This address is registered to Truro College, Truro, England. I've tagged it as educational IP, it might belong to a classroom computer or even a school proxy. This means that 1. the IP won't be blocked long-term unless in extreme cases. But also 2. that instead of requiring the full series of warnings and then giving a long block, the focus should shift to more immediate but shorter slap-on-the-wrist type blocks.


 * Make sure these kiddy IPs got one recent (at least the same day) serious warning. If they continue (the more rapid the better in this case), request a short school block and you should find that admins may be more responsive. But be quick, anything beyond 3 hours drifts into why-bother-that-kid-is-gone land. For the really annoying IPs you can also try WP:ABUSE to get someone contact the school. Femto 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

...?
So, are you actually taking a break, or just harassing other users? Analyzethis 18:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Please see my earlier comments above, , . --A. B. 18:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, did you see what just happened with some of the IPs that attacked us yesterday? They were blocked as open proxies. Quite interesting, Metros232 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Metros, thank you for your resilience, patience and vigilance!


 * I finally concluded that, other than referring this person back to the links I posted above, I was not going to respond to him -- it only seemed to feed something unhealthy within him. It seemed better for Wikipedia that I just lay low. Then I noticed that, in the presence of this new silence, he escalated his behavior -- he almost seemed to crave a block by the time he got one. Very strange -- likely a person with a lot of unhappiness in his life going way beyond Wikipedia. --A. B. 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Next RfA's
Jahiegel, if he ever agrees to run. Amalas as well. My RfA batting average so far is 1.000. Hope it stays this way after Kafziel is done. - crz crztalk 23:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Suite101.com AfD
' A.B.: This is a copy of my reply to your post on my own talk page — feel free to delete it here after you've seen it. ' Athænara  ✉ 01:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks — I have not edited the article except to support its deletion  (date:times 2006:UTC) :
 *  21:43, 20 November : Increased description from singular to plural in article's   tag ).
 *  03:54, 20 November : Added Suite (disambiguation) warning with links to WikiProject & WikiMedia Spam discussions.
 *  21:24, 19 November : Thanked Femto on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam for removing link I had added to an article  07:29, 10 November  . — Æ.  00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi -- you did not have to go to all that work above -- I was just routinely putting the standard "Adw" notification template on the various editors' pages per the WP:AfD procedure. Looking at the language now, I see the tone almost sounds vaguely like that of an indictment, which I certainly did not intend! (I just wanted to give a friendly notification.) --A. B. 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem—I like WikiWork, it increases my WikiSkills ;)  — Æ.  02:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2
''For what it's worth, that's one of the most thoughtful,insightful, well-written AfD comments I've read in a long time. --A. B. 23:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)''
 * Thank you. I felt he wasn't getting a fair shake from some of the opposers on the RfA. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected
I've semi protected your user and user talk pages. Let me know if you want me to lift this or not. Metros232 06:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete Peters
A longstanding problem. There's been two arbitrations. Please ask sysop Bucketsofg. He's current in all these Canadian politics... Thx - crz crztalk 14:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikispam request
I am happy to help clean up but I've tried four or five places in your list and all seem to have been done? I have some time about 1400UTC so tell me if you still need help --BozMo talk 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Just wanted to say thanks for your support, your email, and your encouragement after the close. It's good to meet you, and I'd be happy to help out at Wikiproject: Spam. It's a great idea. Kafziel Talk 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You should be a detective
Thanks for trying to find cases of vote-stacking, but I am sorry to say that, though I am a friend of YouTrue, who happens to be on vacation with me on the same island we came to our concurrent opinion for other reasons. Should have asked me -- Rough 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if I don't even know you're traveling, I would make a very sorry detective. --A. B. 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am watching this thread and have similar concerns to A.B. Unfortunately I'm very busy in the real world at the moment and will be for the next few days, but I am considering sending the Jacobson article to WP:DRV.  Even if there isn't strict puppetry going on, that AfD closure needs a second look. &mdash; Moondyne 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your welcome template
''I like your welcome template the best of all the welcome templates. I use it all the time -- thanks for writing it. --A. B. 13:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)''


 * Thanks very much! I can't take all the credit for it... much of the content was nicked from Ilyanep and I just gave it its unique aesthetic appeal... but it's always nice to hear good things on the old talk page, rather than "yo, let me vandalise this article, she deserves it". You've put a smile on my face! haz  (talk)  e  13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!


 * FYI -- I like your template so much, but I wanted something a little different for anon IPs, so I tweaked it some; see User:A. B./WelcomeAnon. Thanks again for your great contribution to making Wikipedia a welcome place for newcomers! --A. B. 13:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I beat you to it - User:Haza-w/Anon. I really should link one to the other on the page itself, but never got round to it. Glad to see you're on the ball though! haz  (talk)  e  19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)