User talk:A Nobody/Archive 17

In need of assistance
I saw your comments on User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday and thought maybe you could help with a disruptive editor who has been giving me grief for about two weeks now. I just about left several times today but a few folks managed to talk me out of it. I do not feel comfortable taking this to AN/I myself and I'm not even sure I could write up a summary that would be suitable for AN/I. The summary I wrote near the end of this discussion on COI/N links to most of it.

Since I wrote the COI/N summary, this has occurred: (after I removed a link spam )   and after I added a ref  they made this threat

They have a history of this sort of behaviour and have filed false SPI, COI/N, AN/I, etc against other editors in the past with whom they disagreed, sometimes getting them blocked. They edit war and while they are careful to avoid going over 3RR, they are still violating the spirit of 3RR, see

In my case, this all began after I made comments in these two AfDs  which I still believe were disruptive AfDs that were a continuation of this mess  (and related AN/I discussion ). Prior to this they had never touched an IRC-related article, it was only after those AfDs that they began targeting articles I've worked on.

--Tothwolf (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They were told multiple times to disengage during the COI/N mess   but the disruption and harassment has not stopped. If you could refer this mess to an admin who would be willing to deal with the disruption and harassment this individual is directing towards me I'd really appreciate it. Given that they have a clear past history of this sort of thing with others I'm somewhat surprised no one has done anything about it up to this point. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you requested administrative assistant recently? Or you could consider a Request for comment on user conduct or Wikiquette alert?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, although a handful of admins are aware of the earlier stuff. My personal opinion is that this is well beyond a Wikiquette alert and a RFC/U is not something I can deal with myself. I'm pretty much at my limits in dealing with this individual, particularly given the fact that they dug around on my website in an attempt to find personal information to "out" me. Tothwolf (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone is clearly trying to out you, I would think some neutral admin would take action as outing is unacceptable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They technically did "out" me in the sense that they made an unambiguous connection between my username here to my nickname elsewhere, however since I wasn't trying to hide anything I suppose they really didn't "out" me in the literal sense. They were not able to find the personal info they were looking for on my website but the timestamps in the web server logs showed they were digging before posting the false SPI and COI/N (the ones they filed against me in retaliation for my comments in those two AfDs I mentioned above), and they also dug around some more later. While they now flat out deny that they were trying to out me the web server logs sure seem to indicate otherwise, and they were careful how they worded things in the initial COI/N post too
 * Have you sought mediation? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Considering everything I documented in the COI/N thread summary, its clearly harassment and not an editorial issue. Tothwolf (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any admins you trust who could help? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've run it by a number of admins, unfortunately none of the people I've spoken with seem comfortable dealing with it and several mentioned this issue is outside of the type of things they normally deal with. Tothwolf (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from asking an admin or trying again on an admin board, I am not sure what other advice I can add? As I am not myself an admin, I am unfortunately unable to intervene by blocking or warning anyone myself.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I knew you had dealt with such individuals in the past and I was hoping you could refer this to one or more admins who are experienced in dealing with this sort of thing. Tothwolf (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Perhaps you might try User:Casliber and say that I recommended him?  He is an arbitrator and if he is unable to help you would likely know someone who can.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Kill it with FIRE!!!!
re this, I'm kicking myself for leaving out “kill with fire”. I don't personally mind hyperbolic comments though - as long as they're followed by a more rational, longer exposition. The ones that annoy me are the empty
 * “delete per nom ~ ” and
 * “keep per User:Example ~ ” non-arguments.

Icons in AfDs are only going to mess things up more. pablo hablo. 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, the hyperbole ones are not though. The most recent "kill it with fires" I have seen were used by an account across scores of AfDs with literally copy and paste comments in each AfD.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have replied there. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG has made a very sensible proposal on his talk page and I am planning to take it further later today. I will let you know once I have done so. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I shall check it out. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations
Hello, (you already know this but I'm telling everyone) I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note; I have commented accordingly. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some shameless thankspam!

 * Happy to participate and best wishes! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations standstill
I intend to post this on AN later today (around 21:00 UTC). Please let me know if there is anything you would definitely object to or suggest changing. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral
What was the name of that bilateral article where one guy added about 20 references and added pictures. I think one of the pictures was of beer bottles. I have used it as the basis of Mexico - Belgium, but I am working from memory. Do you remember? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not recall. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

KISS Pinball
Hey, I found a bunch of CC pictures of Kiss Pinball games. I saw the article and got interested because I used to play one as a kid. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, if these are fair use, please help add them. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of them to the page, cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neat. Cool!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 15 June 2009 ==


 * Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
 * Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 10:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the update! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Belgium–Mexico relations

 * Fantastic, thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

wt:rfa thread
Hi, you might be interested to read wt:RFA, if only because I named you as one of the inspirations for the thread:)  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the heads up. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations

 * Fantastic! Thanks!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Testing rescue tagged
{| style="border: 2px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, thank you for using the rescue tag, the main organizing tool for the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedians who identify and rescue items that have been tagged for deletion but may be encyclopedic. As part of this tag's use please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and likely benefits our readers.
 * colspan="1" |
 * You are welcome! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 22 June 2009 ==


 * Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
 * News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the update. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescue tagging
Please could you make a comment in deletion discussions when you add the rescue tag, and make a clear note in the edit summary rather than "added"? I can't see why you think the fiction articles you've recently tagged are able to be rescued in the absence of an explanation. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually wait to comment in the Afd until after I have had a chance to first work on the article, but I at the same time frequently avoid commenting in AfDs because some accounts follow me to them and reflexively say to delete just becasue I think it should be kept. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron. Honestly, I feel like you're flooding the ARS with articles and leaving it to other editors to work out why they should be saved. Your edit summary when adding the tag is also misleading. I hope to see articles I can really help to rescue on the ARS list, not long shots even the tagger hasn't argued to keep. If editors are stalking you at AfD, get them sanctioned. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Starcraft locations
Combining all the fictional elements into one article for the sake of one aspect is overkill. The characters and species articles are fine, so it would just create redundant content. Now, what could be done is a rename to Locations of StarCraft, limiting to only key locations (ie the ones in the games) and letting the SC Wikia deal with the minor ones, akin to what I've done previously for Locations of Half-Life. The problem comes with sourcing. Primary sources are all well and good for the basic descriptions and basic plot bits—I can happily put together that part of an article—but primary sources don't provide design info and reception info. I've never had any luck with finding these particular sources; if I could put together a reception section from various small mentions in reviews, I would, but they don't appear to mention this aspect. I've never had much luck with sources in this particular part of the franchise.

This is why I was "badgering" keep comments in the AfD, as you put it: I don't want to delete the article—I've never said I wanted to, I merely acknowledge the possibility—I want the sources to help write it, and these keep comments should be helping by providing sources, not constructing mindless bureaucratic policy discussions to lawyer their way out of doing it (that doesn't apply to you in this case, you just gave me an hour long search through yachting sources :) ); it doesn't exactly enthrall me with confidence in the process. At this point, we're looking at a no consensus or keep result, so if that happens, I'd propose that I redo the article as best I can, even with the lack of secondary sources for interlacing design info into the entries and creating a reception section, and hope that StarCraft II throws out some good secondary sources when that comes out. -- Sabre (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to keep an eye on such items as this and this that are coming out recently as it seems as if these ongoing sorts of previews will have potential for at least a universe article or something. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 29 June 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the update! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 6 July 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Jazz Curtis
Hi, A Nobody. At Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin you said that Jazz Curtis could have an article because of websites like this, which show that the character is verifiable in an out of universe context.

Just because the character exists and that can be verified, does it necessarily mean it deserves an article written about it? What about the character has made an impact on the real world? What makes "her" notable? There was nothing earth shattering that gave the character any watercooler moments. "She" didn't do anything spectacular in her time on the show.

Yes, the character existed. For most characters you could probably find a line or two from the actor about what the character is like, but what's the point? We'd just end up with 1000s and 1000s of pages about non notable characters. Things are already like this.

I'm not meaning to start yet another fight about this, just hear the perspective of someone who thinks the article should be kept (the AfD didn't do that; most comments there were about the AfD). Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat  22:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the Martha McKenzie article, by the way.


 * Thanks. Anyway, I, as does a whole category of editors, reject subjective/elitist concepts like "notability" as a valid criteria for inclusion on a paperless encyclopedia per User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines. What matters is that we can write an article that is of interest to our readers and factually accurate. Thus, we can have a small lead that acknowledges who played her and on what show, followed by a brief plot summary, and then some information on development and production using such sources as the interview that provide out of universe context on the character, finally some reception using previews/reviews of the show. So long as we can do that, i.e. have some balance of in and out of universe information, then I would much rather err on the side of featuring information that is relevant to some segment of our readers (potential editors, donors, etc. as well) than remove it altogether thereby benefitting no one. After all, we have many articles that mean nothing really to me, but could mean all the world to someone else (who knows, maybe some viewers are inspired, relate to the character etc.) and as such, I am far more concerned about those readers than my own personal feelings (I actually am not that big of a fan of soap operas, although I have a larger interest in popular culture in Western Civilization, which is why I study and read on these topics). In any event, I cannot imagine any reason why at worst we would not want to first exhaust all possible avenues of improving or merging or redirecting the content. Or at least keeping it available for the purposes of a Wiki on Home and Away. If someone made such a Wiki, I would gladly serve as an importer and import the revision histories of all those articles at least to such a site as I have done on some of the other wikis I am an admin on with regards to articles of use on them. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying somewhat, and I don't totally disagree with it. I'm in no way a deletionist, it's just that with fictional elements I think that they should have some sort of impact on the real world other than just existing. I'm not sure that the fact that the character may have impressed upon someone, inspired them to behave a certain way or do a certain thing, makes it encyclopedic, not if we can't find anything reliable to verify it at least.
 * At this stage, regardless of how flawed the AfD was, it has got people discussing the articles and what to do with them. I'm not actually holding out much hope for the majority of them, but since there are people including yourself who want to see what material can be found for the characters, I won't begin any individual AfDs yet. I'm also going to look for anything. You're right about exhausting all avenues, and if material can be found, that's great. Matthewedwards : Chat  06:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a list of all the characters from the show somewhere in my userspace in say alphabetical order, I will go through trying to source all of them and will make a note after each one whether or not I could source it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sally Fletcher is up for deletion. I've listed a few sources that can be used as references in the AfD, but haven't inserted them into the article. Same for a Neighbours character, Bridget Napier. I've mentioned some possible sources in that one's AfD. Matthewedwards : Chat  20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some to Sally's article. Even though I suppose I disagreed with you and Orderinchaos in your AfD nomination, I am pleased that we have been able to work together on these since then.  I suppose my concern is really what we're seeing with this latest flush of nominations, i.e. totally indiscriminate and by accounts not adhering to WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE in manner, but rather using little more than absurd WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:JNN "arguments".  I can handle disagreeing with editors who at least know what they are talking about and are willing to improve content as well, it's the indiscriminate approach that tends to bother me.  After all at the main character list talk page, I myself am not defending all of these, i.e. some can be kept, some merged, some redirected, etc.  They vary from one to the other.  Sally is notable by any reasonable standard and thus does not merit the same copy and paste "cruft" "nnotable" derision given to those few that I pointed out cannot be readily verified.  In any event, with regards to Bridget, should we make a separate talk page list akin to the Home and Away characters where we first determine which can be improved and work from there?  It would go much better if we could first try improving them, then trying merging what we can, and only when these fail deal with AfDs, no?  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We both come at things from different perspectives, but at least we can both say we're working in what we believe are the best interests of the site. I didn't even nominate every article about every character. Actually, I don't know if I'm still in agreement with keeping all those listed at Talk:List of Home and Away characters, even with sources some might still be better off merged if we remove all the plot crap, but while we're working on them there really is no need to be AfDing any of them.
 * I'm rather pissed off with User:Jack Merridew. He can see we're working on them, but he's still gone ahead and nominated a bunch. It's far too many for a small group of editors to work on in the same 7-day period. His AfD for Sally Fletcher is totally flawed. Does he even do any searches for notability before nominating? I wouldn't think so judging by this.
 * Opening a similar discussion at Talk:List of Neighbours characters does need doing, its just that this particular character is at AfD right now, and we're struggling to keep up with Home and Away, before we start tackling another soap with even more characters. Matthewedwards : Chat  07:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I strongly suspect a larger problem with those nominations as explained here. Anyway, I have added Home and Away to my Table of notable fictional universes as looking over the main article, a few of these characters actually even serve the titular role in some published books, i.e. their "notability" extends beyond the television show to print media and thus the plot information in the articles may need to take that into account.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)