User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 6

user:66.10.167.1
rather than block the school, why not sprotect Saryn Hooks? I am sending you an email as well... - crz crztalk 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because

But I welcome advice or argument on the point, I even asked on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, and they seem to think it's OK. On a side note, how do I tell it's a school IP? AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) it's a 48 hour block, while this been a vandalism-only IP for a while more than 48 hours,
 * 2) it's the only source of vandalism for Saryn Hooks
 * 3) my general impression is that when one user vandalizes one article, we block the user, not protect the article, so that other users can potentially edit the article
 * Makes sense... click the WHOIS button at the bottom of the IP's talk page. It comes up as one of two things, but edit history includes the school and makes it obviously a school IP. You try not to block schools for too long. Certain 48 is more than necessary IMO. I block schools for half an hour. That's usually enough to have them leave the lab, go to class, and allow the rest of the school to edit. - crz crztalk 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My rationale for 48 was that vandalism has been once a day for the last 4 days, so 24 might not have any effect. A half hour certainly wouldn't have any effect. There had been a 24 hour block a few months ago. If it's a school and it's Friday, the distinction between 24 and 48 may be moot, of course. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I attend The Peddie School and apologize for the vandalism. I disagree with the statement that we are vandalism-only, see my recent contribution to Cellular Automaton. It seems as though a Peddie Student finds it particularly funny to vandalize Saryn Hooks, this will be mentioned to the dean, but anonymity makes this vandal nonpunishable. I'd like to extend my sincerest apology to the Wikipedia community. nick 20:20, 1 Dec 2006 UTC


 * Thank you, and good luck in your efforts. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions for Paul August
Hi AnonEMouse. I've answered your follow-up question. Paul August &#9742; 15:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

DefCom 2 ?
Thanks for the edit to blp0. Given the serious nature of adding someone's name to the List of gay porn stars (thus indicating that they were in a gay porn film, but not neccessarily saying they're gay), would it be inappropriate to skip the earlier versions of the vandal templates and use either undefined or blp1 as a first warning? I know some folks are just fooling around, but I'd be in favor of communicating the seriousness of this sort of edit right away. &mdash; Chidom   talk   23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom and transparency
While you're entitled to your opinion, I don't think we disagree on the basics. Regarding transparency, I believe that the core problem with the arbcom is that, the way things are structured presently, there is no clear and unified rationale for them to communicate. We've been seeing fragmented decisions because they are voted on in pieces. The way most of the arbs work is that they read through the evidence and the summaries and proposals and then vote based on what they have read. For many of the cases, you see all of the decisionmaking there is to see on the case pages themselves; the only discussion on the private mailing list is "hurry up and vote so we can close ." So the problem isn't that there's hidden discussion, it's that the thought process behind each vote is in each of the arb's heads and never gets written down or communicated at all (except to the extent that they make comments when they vote). This is why I've been putting the emphasis on improving the workshop/proposed decision process and lobbying for more cohesive opinions written by one individual speaking for the committee.

I was an initial advocate for the presence of a private mailing list for the arbcom members, and it was in fact initially hosted on one of my servers. The purpose of doing so was to provide a discussion space where the arbs could each figure out where they stood and what the points of agreement and disagreement were for each decision. The idea was that then representatives from the one, two, or N schools of thought involved would then go and put together an organized summary of all that for the community to read. I don't think that goal has ever been realized, certainly not as much as I would have liked to see. Ultimately, the arbcom itself is best served articulating its reasoning clearly and concisely since it relies so much on widespread support and respect from the community to implement its remedies.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering you have more support than any other candidate, as well as a history of support from our founder, I really, really hope that's true. I guess what I'm afraid of is a smaller version of the iron law of oligarchy. A star chamber is more efficient than an open process, no way around it. It just causes resentment. Transparency has been an important issue, enough so that several candidates cited it as their reason for running. Then, of course, they all supported you, so maybe they are smarter than I am! :-). Thanks for responding. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, if that lonely opposition can get you to pay a bit more attention to transparency in decisions when you are elected, it will have been more than worth while. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fallen for the trap..?
I still don't admire the metaphor, you know... Fallen, or walked, into the trap, perhaps? Taken, or swallowed, the bait? Bishonen | talk 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Beaten with the trout? All right, will correct. AnonEMouse (squeak)
 * See the first draft of User:Freakofnurture's responses to one of my ArbCandidate questions to him, and the associated comment on his talkpage, for further relevant discussion of traps. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I need a couple of links. I looked through a couple of histories, and have no idea what you must be talking about. I think I'm more dim than usual today. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See here (click on image link at bottom) and here. Newyorkbrad 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions
I tried to make those responses a tad more clear for people reading, though I didn't change too much. Voice -of- All  22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can rewrite so I can understand what you mean, I won't change to support, but I will even withdraw the opposition. I'm big on intelligent, understandable arbcom statements. You've achieved the intelligent part - probably - now if only I understood what you were writing! :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I added a "bottom line" comment to most of the answers that state my conclusions. Voice -of- All  23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Long comments on Arbcom vote
"Voters are requested not to add extensive comments to their votes. An uninvolved party may move long comments to the talk page." —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a point. I moved the UninvitedCompany comment to the talk page; I assume this is the one you meant: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/UninvitedCompany. Though I'm not an uninvolved party, I hope that's still all right. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AFd Request
Hi there,

Would you mind taking a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Brandenburg

It needs more input from seasoned editors.

Thank you, Linux monster 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd actually like to second that request. If you have time to review the comments and perhaps some of the editors' contribs, I think you could provide some useful insight : ) Doc  Tropics  00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like it closed before I got there. The article Bryan Brandenburg is overloaded with minor sources, but doesn't look terrible. Don't kill yourselves over this, it's not the end of the world. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking Mouse. I actually didn't care much about the subject either way, but the page blanking and sockpuppetry was a little out of hand.
 * Given the number of times I've come to you with BLP issues since you made admin, I must be your #1 pest; I hope you're not getting blisters from wielding the mop : ) Doc  Tropics  13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Doc   Tropics  13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion?
Articles for deletion/Jessica Betancourt - crz crztalk 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone keeps asking me to weigh in on closed articles for deletion! :-) In this case, right decision.

We seem to have most if not all of the Playmates of the Month, but not every Playboy model - this one seems to have been an online-only and of-the-week. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul August oppose?
Wow, worse than Geogre. I thought I knew your problems with Geogre, related to turning up the heat in the Giano case ... but what has Paul August done? He seems quite innocuous, dedicated, and non-controversial. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He said Geogre was better than him. I think he is a bit of an enabler. Fred Bauder 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*
Well, mostly because I'm late for work - this sucks. There's got to be an easier way to get these out quickly.NinaEliza 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent ArbCom Candidate Questions!
My compliments on your synthesis of questions to ask the candidates in the ArbCom elections. They do a very good job of drawing out the opinions of the candidates on very important issues. In addition, as stated, they are quite difficult to answer completely, due to the incredible complexity of the issues you raised. They have served as an excellent gauge of candidate's experience, opinions, and judgment, and I'm finding myself clicking on your subsection for most of the candidates when I go to read their responses to the questions.

Again, thanks and good job! —Lantoka ( talk 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A reward

 * Not prompted by anything in particular. Over the last several weeks, I have been very impressed with your demeanor and attitude, your discussion style, and your ideas (such as the ArbCom questions). Keep up the good work. Olessi 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Cocktails
Cheers! I left you some responses to our earlier conversation at User talk:Willscrlt. When you have the opportunity, it would be nice to take a look at and salvage any useful information from those deleted articles. Thanks! --Willscrlt 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Got another one for you: Incredible Hulk (cocktail). It was successfully AfD'ed several months ago. Someone recreated it. It was deleted again. Someone recreated it (again). This time I noticed some good info in it (not much, but better than what we currently have in List of cocktails), and I requested (uselessly it appears) that the article remain alive until we finish our cleanup (on or before March 1). Sadly, it was deleted again before I had time to cull the usefull stuff. It sure is frustrating when people delete stuff right and left on you while you're trying to improve things. No pity, no mercy, I guess. An AfD appears to be a permanent seal of doom no matter how someone tries to fix it. *sigh* (Yes, I'm frustrated, can you tell?) Any suggestions for reducing the chance of this type of thing happening again? Thanks. --Willscrlt 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I put the text from several deleted revisions in User:Willscrlt/Incredible Hulk (cocktail) - but, frankly, there's not much there. One was actually referenced, which looked good, but the reference doesn't actually say what the article writer wanted it to say. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and more general advice? Don't take it so hard. It's not the end of the world that Wikipedia sits a few weeks or months without this information. Really. It will all turn out for the best in the end - eventually someone will find or write a better source for this information, and we will be able to write a good enough article with sufficient content and references. Meanwhile, even if a few people did come looking for a recipe for the Incredible Hulk, and had to find it elsewhere, or even make Martinis or Screwdrivers instead, I don't think they suffered long. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, I think I found a source for you. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQE/is_3_15/ai_n6025787/pg_3 This actually gives the history of the drink, and that it's popular. Add in the previous one (this time not misrepresenting what it says), a couple more, and you just might squeak by. The article should focus on the drink's popularity among the hip-hop crowd, its influence on the popularity of Hpnotiq, and history, rather than the recipe. Here is another source that it is the most popular at a specific club in GA. http://www.augusta.com/masters/nightlife/touchofclass.shtml Anoter in CA (it's a New York Times article, which helps a bit) http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/fashion/sundaystyles/17BOITE.html?ex=1166072400&en=9cc9d21c53c736d4&ei=5070 Here is a source that cites the cocktail as a reason for the popularity of Hpntiq. http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2004/05/10/tidbits1.html?page=4 http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2004/05/10/tidbits1.html?page=5 Here is a weak one from Honolulu. http://starbulletin.com/2003/11/27/features/story1.html

Put them all together and you just might squeak by. I'll lean on Crz a bit not to speedy it while you're working for a few days. But if by chance it gets deleted again, don't panic even so, see above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't recreate it; someone else did. I simply took the things you found, along with some additional searching, and I expanded it some more. My comments on the talk page sum up my thoughts on the whole matter pretty clearly. Thanks again for your help. The only thing I would like to see done eventually is to name it as Incredible Hulk (cocktail) instead of Incredible hulk (drink) to fit in with the desired naming structure within the project. Though, perhaps, it would be better to just let dozing dogs lie for a while? --Willscrlt 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dang. My earlier "thank you" for finding all that did not get saved. I had a browser crash, and I guess the edits were still unsaved when it crashed. Anyway, thank you very much for finding all that. I really appreciate it.

New request: Please restore B-52 (cocktail) to WikiProject Cocktails/Archive/B-52, which is part of the Project Archive. This is a frustrating one, because I just finished highlighting this drink by picturing it in the shooters section and cleaned up all the redirects to it and everything. I was going to add the derivative drinks (B-51, B-52 with Bombay Doors, etc.) all to that one article rather than having all the related drinks listed in the List of cocktails. I didn't know it had already been AfD'ed back in September (before I started cleaning things up).

At least I have some good dialog going at Backdraft (drink) (2nd nomination). Hopefully the outcome will be to keep the article alive through the conclusion of the Cleanup Project, and by then the article should be greatly improved.

Thanks again for all your great help. :-) --Willscrlt 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Added both deleted revisions. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also added a couple of references to Backdraft (drink). They're not great, but they are better than nothing. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I need your advice
Thank you for your clarification on WP:FRINGE and whether it relates to non-scientific fringe theories or not. I would like your advice on just such an application. I am in the middle of a very contentious AfD dispute. The article in question is Jahbulon (there is a link to the AfD on the article page). Here is the debate in a nutshell (and I will try to be NPOV in discribing this)... Some of us (including me) feel that the article has problems with WP:Fringe, and should be either deleted or merged (into another article where FRINGE would not be an issue). Obviously, those supporting the other side very much disagree, and say we are misapplying FRINGE. At this point, I don't know what to think anymore. I think I need a neutral party to read the article, the AfD discussion and the debate on the talk page, and tell me FRINGE applies or not. I will not quote you (you can add your two cents if you fell like it)... I just want a reality check to see if I am completely off the radar or not. Thanks Blueboar 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoo. Deep waters. Yes, from reading the article, it seems the main backing for the controversy is a single book by Ankerberg and Weldon. (By the way, the links pointing to it don't work for me.) I'll opine in the AfD, Articles for deletion/Jahbulon (3rd nomination). AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Err. On the other hand, the Talk:Jahbulon talk page note about the Religion in the Contemporary World makes me change my mind. That seems to be a mainstream book, and if it really says, "They have therefore been repeatedly embarassed by repeated accusations that theirs is an occult faith which worships a composite deity called Jahbulon, who is different from the god of the world's great religions.", then it clearly thinks this is a notable concept. FRINGE calls for extensive discussion, and while this source isn't extensive discussion in itself, it does assert that there has been such. That's close enough. "Jahbulon" also seems to get 18,000 Google hits, which isn't everything, but isn't chopped liver either. Sorry. Keep it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the imput. It is good to know that I was not losing my mind, and that my initial interpretation of FRINGE was sound (as the reference to Religion in the Contemporary World was just added and was not among the references when we filed the AfD). I can accept your take on things.  Disappointing, but so be it.  I think both sides in this debate (and I will include myself in this) have let their personal POVs about Masonry influence their arguments on the AfD, and in editing the article ... and it is nice to have a reality check from an outsider.  Blueboar 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cocktail
Normally I would be glad. But here, NO, because it was deleted via AfD: Articles for deletion/Incredible Hulk (cocktail), where consensus was reached that cocktail is not notable. I think the only remedy is DRV with new evidence (is there new evidence?) - crz crztalk 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The AfD, like most of them, was based on the state of the article at the time, which had no references. Also, it was nominated by a certain legend... But it's not important, the article isn't ready for recreation yet, and may never be. We'll argue it out should it come to that. Thanks for stating your view. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He is a legend! He was my first love. I fthe article is substantially different from the one AfD'd, we can recreate under G4, I think it's fine. I'll be flexible. - crz crztalk 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * This is a funny coincidence. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD debate.  Whether you agree or not, the nominator raises an interesting point about notability re: things that have gotten media coverage.  When I read this article after seeing it on DYK, I immediately thought pretty much all the things the nominator says in the AfD of this Rachel Hudson article, but I just let it go.  But now that I see this blossoming debate, I wonder if you think the situation applies doubly so to this article - after all, nobody died at the Heart Attack Grill, and it got far far less media coverage than Rachel Hudson.  In other words, I would consider nominating this article for deletion based on the reasoning used in the above cited debate - but I thought I would get your feedback.  Thoughts?--Dmz5 07:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Amazing. Just a few thoughts, yes.
 * The nominator's arguments in Articles for deletion/Rachel Hudson are a prime example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Sure, he writes, it may look like the BBC wrote 4 articles on the case, but they didn't really consider it important. Nominator has psychic powers that the Notability criterion lacks. Thank God.
 * Looks like Rachel Hudson is going to be kept in a landslide of epic proportions. Thanks for telling me, I'm going to go join the landslide.
 * Even if RH were deleted, I strongly question your assertion the the Heart Attack Grill got less coverage - RH's coverage are all from one source, and arguably a local source only (BBC Nottinghamshire). HAG's coverage is multiple stories from multiple sources, on several topics, including international coverage.
 * Finally - let's see. I wrote the article over several days, found a good number of sources, edited, re-edited, nominated it for DYK, edited the DYK nomination repeatedly, and apparently care about this sort of thing, given that I plaster DYK banners all over my user page. Hmm. Is it really that much of a mystery how I would feel if that article were casually deleted for not being important? AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok ok i get it i get it sorry i asked --Dmz5 23:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice on a work in progress
Hi, AnonEMouse. You seem to be a major editor in the subject and to know Wikipedia's policies in the area much better than I do. So I wonder if you have the time and interest, if you could look in on a work in progress of mine, User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 1980s. Any advice you can offer on how to improve it, and how to pre-emptively safeguard it against deletion would be most appreciated. I have a few areas of concern/doubt regarding the list myself, but will discuss them with on my talk page if you are willing. Thank you. Regards. Dekkappai 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems like an excellent thing to discuss on the article talk page. I put my comments there. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the thoughtful and useful comments, AnonEMouse! I'll reply there as soon as I get the chance. Dekkappai 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

External links question
Hi there. I have a question for you concerning external links in the List of cocktails. An anon user continually wipes out the three links that I have placed there, along with the notes I have left advising people to 1) list the links alphabetically, 2) what types of sites should and should not be listed, and most importantly, 3) before making changes bring it to the talk pages for discussion.

Here is how I leave it (dashed lines are HTML comments):
 * External links
 * - Please alpabetize named links. Do not link the description, just the name. Thanks. -
 * - Sites listed should provide considerable value without cost, pop-up ads, or other -
 * - highly distracting ads. -
 * - New sites must be discussed at Talk:List of cocktails BEFORE being added here. -
 * 1001 Cocktails - Cocktails and mixed drinks recipes
 * CocktailDB - The Internet Cocktail Database
 * Good Cocktails - Mixed drink recipes, cocktails, and bartender guide

That gets reverted to just:
 * External links
 * Good Cocktails - Mixed drink recipes, cocktails, and bartender guide
 * CocktailDB - The Internet Cocktail Database

Previously the user had left only the goodcocktails.com site, and the entire description of that site was linked. I guess we are making some progress.

The only dialog I am seeing comes in the comments made during the reverts:
 * Upon changing my last-saved version which did not have many notes and slightly different links.
 * 19:56, December 14, 2006 68.155.70.148 (Talk) (→External links - revert vandalism and removed ad driven spam links)
 * Actual vandalism of the links occurred. An URL (not the description or name of the link) was changed from goodcocktails.com to mymixeddrinks.com.
 * 10:49, December 15, 2006 143.182.124.3 (Talk) (→External links)
 * Response after the vandalism:
 * 14:20, December 15, 2006 68.155.70.148 (Talk) (→External links - revert Max's vandalism)
 * I noticed the changes, read the reverts, and reviewed each listed link by visiting the sites again specifically checking to see if the links were good resources or not, and if they were overly spammy. I dropped one site and created the list and notes I have now. Created a corresponding talk page entry explaining my actions.
 * 09:34, December 16, 2006 Willscrlt (Talk | contribs) (→External links - CocktailDB is a useful resource)
 * 09:56, December 16, 2006 Willscrlt (Talk | contribs) m (→External links - +Note)
 * The user blanked the external links, leaving only the cocktaildb.com site.
 * 13:22, December 16, 2006 68.155.70.148 (Talk) (→External links - rv)
 * I restored the blanked entries.
 * 13:50, December 16, 2006 Willscrlt (Talk | contribs) m (→External links - rvv - See Talk:List of cocktails#External Links before making changes to the External Links section. Please do not blank the notes or accepted links.)
 * The user reverted my changes again, leaving two links behind and nothing else.
 * 21:29, December 16, 2006 68.155.70.148 (Talk) (1001cocktails is a commercial site selling products, its removed. Alphabetization is pointless, we wouldn't stick 10 links before Sony's corporate site just because those links start with A or B.)

This feels like what could become the start of an edit war. If so, it would be my first. Actually, it won't be, because I refuse to get dragged into one. I'm the first to admit that I do not know all the policies around here, but I do know that repeated reverting can lead to problems (I know there is some jargon for it like 3RVR or something). Furthermore, it's no fun for anyone involved. Additionally, I admit my choices of links are just that -- my choices. I am open to other people's choices and their decisions if the consensus goes contrary to my opinion. Usually after hearing the other side, we can easily reach compromise (thus the reason I have avoided edit wars in the past). This person, however, is not participating in discussions, so I am at a loss.

What are your feelings on the links I selected? Yes, 1001 Cocktails is a commercial site. Is that against Wiki policy? I do not see how when many commercial sites are linked to all the time. The site does contain ads, but they are easily ignored and non-offensive. I weighed the value of the information contained in the site vs. the commercials, and weighed that against several other drink sites I've encountered in my research, and I feel 1001 Cocktails is a worthwhile and useful site, no matter if it is commercial or not. Goodcocktails.com appears to be commercial, but even less so in appearances. It just does not offer as much useful information to me when I am researching artciles for the Project. It's a good site, however, which is why it is one of the three I selected. It certainly shouldn't be the only one listed, because it is too incomplete a resource.

If you see holes in my logic (or think I am outright in the wrong), please let me know so I can mend the errors of my ways. On the other hand, if I appear to be in the right, please advise me on what steps I should try next. Sorry this is so long, but it is the first one of these, so I was probably overly explanatory. Thanks! --Willscrlt 07:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm the anon user that removes his ongoing spam link. Its extremely simple: the Goodcocktails site is completely free of ads, its not commercial (despite Willscrlt's false description of it being so) and does not contain an online store or affiliate links to sites that sell products.  The one link is adequate, there's no point in adding a link to an online store that uses drink recipes to increase their customer base.  I can only imagine that it's his site, as much as he tries to spam with it.  He can takes whatever steps he likes, it doesn't change the fact that it's a commercial spam link that doesn't contribute anything to the article that other non-commercial sites couldn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.155.70.148 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Ha ha. It is too funny that you would think I am affiliated with 1001 Cocktails. :-)
 * It is not that I am trying to spam with it. Quite the contrary. I have been doing 95% of the cleanup of the Wikipedia articles related to Cocktails on here (and I don't even drink them, and I am not affiliated with any cocktails sites, bars, alcohol brands, distributors, etc.; I'm a computer consultant). In the process of all that cleanup, I have regularly Googled many drink terms and drink recipies. Cocktaildb.com and 1001Cocktails.com are two of the sites that repeatedly comes up with highly useful information related to my searches. They are commercial, of course. Most of the sites on the Internet are commercial unless they are run by non-profit organizations (and even those solicit through fundraising) or individuals passionate about a topic. Many sites run by individuals without corporate backing are inferior to commercial sites simply because the Webmasters also have to go to work and school, spend time with families, live their lives, and so forth. Commercial sites can pay one or more people to sit around 8 hours each day to improve their sites. I stated that Goodcocktails.com also appeared to me to be a commercial site. I should have verified that before making that observation. According to the About Us page, it appears the site is run by an individual (José Manuel Quezada). The fact that it is an individual's site instead of a commercial site does not change my opinion of it at all. I still feel it is a good site, but not as comprehensive or useful as either Cocktaildb.com or 1001Cocktails.com when researching cocktail-related information, and that is from my actual experiences doing so. I have no connection (affiliate, stockholder, paid, unpaid, or otherwise) with any of these sites, except for using them.
 * I really wish you would discuss this on the talk page so that we could get the feedback from other people who visit that page. That is why the notes are included with the links. By blanking the notes, and repeatedly tossing out (in my opinion) perfectly useful links, and not engaging in discussions about the links, it gave the appearance of vandalism (especially since the edits are done anonymously). I see now it is a matter of heartfelt concern on your part, rather than spite or unsavory motives. Let's put it to a discussion and see how other people feel about the value of the 1001Cocktails site. If people are offended or think it sucks, then no problem--it goes bye-bye. If people find it useful and informative, then it stays. Can we agree to that compromise? And in good faith, I will re-post the notes, but leave out the 1001Cocktails link until, and unless, there is consensus that the link should be included. In exchange, you agree to not revert that section after I make those changes. Is that fair enough?
 * Most of all, thank you for finally engaging in dialog with me. I really appreciate it. :-) P.S. Sorry for filling up your talk space with all this, AnonEMouse. It really belongs on the article's talk page instead of here. --Willscrlt 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The straw poll on the article talk page, Talk:List of cocktails, seems like an exceelent idea - you may be able to get opinions from experts, of which I'm not one. From looking at the sites myself, the information on all the sites does seem to be rather similar. However, we can count numbers. http://www.goodcocktails.com/recipes/drinks.php | ALL says 1239 recipes. http://www.1001cocktails.com/recipes/ claims 2636 recipes. http://www.cocktaildb.com/index doesn't specify. That would seem to me to be an argument to include the second as well. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good idea. I'd heard of "straw polls" around here, but this is the first one I've seen implemented. --Willscrlt 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up. The same anonymous user (with a different IP address) is back at List of cocktails reverting links. In Talk:List of cocktails he finally responded, but with the same gripes and still somewhat unwilling to engage in any real dialog. I linked to this article in the discussions, so please don't archive it if you can help it. Thanks! --Willscrlt 01:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson redux
Hey there, finally got around to taking a look again - what an improvement! I'm very impressed. If you nominated it for GA, I'd likely pass it without question. I left a note at the Peer Review, but I'll say it here, too: it's FA quality for sourcing, but a better prose cleanup is likely warranted to get it any further. I don't know if Hoary would be willing to help you - he was indispensable to me during the Babb FAC - but he's great if available. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Can't take all the credit, though, seems that just yesterday User:Chidom and User:Tabercil gave me notable help. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Closings
Hey, when you close an AfD, could you make sure that you but  at the top of the page, above the header. If you don't do that, it messess up the program that counts the pages. Thanks and happy closing! Cbrown1023 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be a good person to ask on this. What do you do when an AfD has a "redirect" consensus?  Do you delete the article and then redirect to prevent recreation or do you just redirect? Cbrown1023 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lukas Ridgeston images
Somehow two images in the Lukas Ridgeston article got deleted and I either wasn't given a heads up or just missed it. How would I go about finding out why they were deleted? I don't want to restore them if they're going to be deleted again, obviously. The images were Image:Ridgeston.jpg and Image:Lucas Ridgeston back cover of 30 Porn-Star Portraits.jpg. I'm fairly certain they were well-sourced and illustrated items in the article. Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In each case, they were removed by User:Angr with the comment (I7 (fair use img not being used consistently with tag)). The first one had the description:
 * bookcover
 * This is the picture from the cover of the book Photos of Lucas (ISBN 3861871114).
 * The second one had the description:
 * Summary
 * Retrieved from Amazon.com on 2006-11-05. Article contains commentary on Ridgeston's inclusion in, and appearance on the back cover of, this book.
 * Licensing
 * bookcover


 * The second one is better, naturally (I gather you uploaded that one), however I would guess that Angr's objections are that the books aren't really discussed in the article enough to qualify for fair use claims. If that is the objection, I'm afraid I'll have to go along with him. The only mentions of the books that I can find in the article are:
 * XXX: 30 Porn-Star Photographs&mdash;A photograph of Ridgeston was used for the back cover
 * Edition Euros 11: Photos of Lukas, photographed and published by the renowned photographer Bruno Gmünder in 1999.
 * That's not really discussion of the books, that's two list entries. There is nothing that indicates the books were in any way special to the article, it bears a list of a dozen of them. The intention of the bookcover tags are for articles primarily, or to a large part about the books themselves. To cite one example we both know :-), the How to Make Love Like a Porn Star article is about the book itself, and the Jenna Jameson article devotes almost as much space to the same book's major effect on the career of the performer - those can be standards to shoot for. If the article discusses how Lukas got a significant portion of his fame from one particular book, that would be a good fair use justification for the cover being used there. It's also useful as a specific counter-example - XXX: 30 Porn-Star Photographs uses Jenna Jameson on its front cover, but there isn't anything special about it in her career, she's appeared on quite a few covers, it wouldn't be fair use in her article either. Of course Jenna is an article we've worked hard on specifically for it to be a model to others. Here are a few uses that aren't quite as polished, but still fair use, I believe: Gang bang - where over half of the article is indirectly about the effect of the series being portrayed, and two paragraphs are specifically about the first two specific films in the series whose covers are shown. Here is another, Clare Short, where the book is directly described in only a few sentences, but it is an autobiography, and covers the events of the article. That last one could probably use more on the book itself, actually. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I went back and looked at earlier versions of the article and found that I'm the culprit here. In making edits to tighten the article and "listify" some of the information I eliminated the text that was more specific about the books. In particular, the ...Photos of Lukas can be considered fairly notable as it is a single-subject book; not many porn stars get their own books. Absent any real information about the books, however, the removal of the images was certainly justified.
 * I wrote to this exact topic regarding the Desireé Cousteau DVD covers in her article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars: DVD Covers. I'm still of the opinion that there doesn't need to be gobs of information about the item the illustration is for. In the case of the ...Photos of Lucas image, referencing the fact that it is a single-subject book about him by a noted photographer should be sufficient information to justify the inclusion of the image in the article. I think that a short reference to the book and its importance is enough to justify using the images. As long as the reference provides some brief, but descriptive, information about the source of the image.
 * This probably doesn't justify anything:
 * "He appeared on the cover of the foo book."
 * But this might:
 * "He was chosen as the model to appear on the back cover of foo. The book, by renowned photographer whoever, included an introduction by someone notable and essays on pornography from well-known artists such as artist 1 and artist 2. The book also became the basis for an HBO documentary of the same name."
 * In my mind, this sort of reference provides enough substantive information about the book to justify showing an image from its cover (or interior). Whatever illustration is used needs to be low-resolution; it would proabably be best to include an image of the front cover, as that is where the title of the book being referenced appears. Perhaps side-by-side images?
 * I may or may not spend the time revising the article in such a way as to justify the restoration of the images. My perception of late is that I'm one of the (mighty) few people that does any serious work on these articles. After "rescuing" Falcon Entertainment and Mark Dalton (porn star) I came to the realization that there just aren't very many folks out there that really grasp the importance of Verifiability; they're just convinced that if they know and/or it is common knowledge that the topic of the article is notable/important/significant, then the article belongs here, with or without references to sources.
 * The latest illustration of this is at Alexandre Frota (Talk:Alexandre Frota); I started to write more about that topic here, but realized it was turning into a rant, so I'll skip it.
 * The bottom line for me is that I'm becoming less and less willing to step in and clean up articles that no one else seems to care enough about to spend time writing them instead of just slapping a few statements on the page and calling it an "article". (I'll stop there, too; I seem to be afflicted with a stronger "ranting bug" at the moment than the one I usually experience.
 * Any road, thanks for your assistance. Just in case I wind up not nagging you again before then, I hope you thoroughly enjoy your holidays. Have good days. &mdash; Chidom   talk   08:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

cquote
Please revert yourself so that cquote redirects to bquote. It cannot be used in articles until it has been fixed. The template uses the click template and a table in place of a blockquote, which is unacceptable. Please discuss changes in the future instead of revert warring. — Omegatron 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I took the liberty of copying it to Template talk:Cquote to keep all the discussion in one place, and I also responded there. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson: hot, and has a Good Article about her
As you nominated Jenna Jameson for GA status and seem to be one of the primary contributors to the article, I wanted to congratulate you on its excellence. I have deemed it as a Good Article; lo, so it is written, and so it shall be done. Great job- personally, I think it could be an FA. -- Kicking222 15:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hurrah, hurrah, hurray! Yes, that is my eventual goal. Thank you very much! AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism
I appreciate your comments on the racism category and I want to thank you for stating them in a way that was a little more diplomatic than me. I am in full agreement that there would be a never ending list of articles added to the catgory that would be counterproductive. --Mrtrey99 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerns
Hi again, AnonEMouse. I'm still learning how Wikipedia works, so I'm not sure if some things that I personally think are not quite right are the way Wikipedia works normally, and I should just get used to them... Anyway, I have some concerns about some recent actions here-- An editor acquaintance of mine (User talk:Hexvoodoo) had posted invitations at related pages to join an outside project he had started. The last instance of this posting was several weeks ago, yet he was blocked without warning for "spamming." Also, the admin who did this has stated that inviting concerned parties to AfD discussions constitutes spam, and implied that a user could be blocked for doing this. Are both these correct? Dekkappai 19:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first seems overreaction, I'll ask JzG if we can unblock. The second is correct, though it would have to be rather extreme to cause actual banning (but has happened). You want to see Spam and similar sections. The relevant issue is the formation of "factions", that would prowl the Wikipedia and be able to set policy or delete or keep articles by sheer weight of numbers, rather than argument. Since there really are thousands of editors here, if you work at it just a bit, by looking through edit histories of likely articles and see how each edited, you can probably build up a good sized voting bloc for nearly any issue you feel like. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)