User talk:Balph Eubank/Archives/2011/January

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:LOBU
Hello Burpelson AFB. Did you mean to remove Mikemikev completely from the List of banned users? There is some value in having both ban entries in place, because their appeal procedures are different. There is an appeal process for Arbcom bans and a different appeal process for community bans. Please consider restoring both bans to the list. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a permaban would supercede a temp ban, regardless who placed it. Even if he appealed his arbcom ban (which he shows no inclination to do), he'd still be permabanned by the community. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what if he successfully appeals the community ban? He still has to go to Arbcom if he wants to resume editing. The main point of things like LOBU and RESTRICT (I think) is to supply an index to where the previous discussions occurred. There were two discussions, hence two links should be there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I reverted myself regardless, now there are entries in both places. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Shared IP vs Assigned IP
Hi,

Regarding a recent change you made to replace with , I believe that former is more correct. Although the IP could be refreshed to a different customer, at any one time it is assigned to only one customer at a time. See. What do you think? Thanks and best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I share your love of Dr. Strangelove! JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe. Any IP that refreshes when the customer shuts down or reboots their router is a shared IP. A static IP would be one that never changes and is always locked to the same computer regardless of how often they reset their router. It's important to note shared IPs because experienced IP vandals generally will use one for a bit, then reset their router to obtain a new IP address, leaving the old one open for whomever comes along and we don't want to prevent innocent people from editing because of what someone else did. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize that the "Whois" template was meant for static IPs only. The text of it is a tad unclear (at least to me), as it refers to Proxies and what not. I do agree (as I noted at ANI regarding this particular IP) that there's no way to tell if it is static or not. Given the intended use of the templates as you describe, SharedIP is the right choice (as an aside, a better template would be a new one called "NotStatic", as such IPs aren't per se shared, but are reassignable. That's for another day...). Thanks for explaining! JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not even really sure why we still have the whois template, honestly. It's redundant with the SharedIP and other shared templates, but when you add it, it doesn't put the IP into the shared IP addresses category. I think it's one of those things that's been around forever and nobody has bothered to deal with it. Oh well. Happy Wednesday! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts at AN
Re: this, the only way to avoid it is to abandon the edit conflict screen and go back to the page and make the edit again. It's an unavoidable problem with the software. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks I definitely didn't know that. I hope I haven't wiped out anyone else's stuff along the way! :-( - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

St. James Church (Stratford, CT)
I've removed your prod from this article as someone add a hangon to it which, although the wrong process, is a pretty certain sign the deletion is contested. Dpmuk (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill page edits
Hello; I noticed you had made some edits to the Skidmore, Owings and Merrill page. I manage SOM's public sites so I monitor the Wiki page for accuracy as well. I have made subsequent edits to clarify a few items.

Since SOM is designing rather than producing (and since the list of projects that are designed is seemingly endless), I removed "products" from the infobox. I changed "private" to "partnership" just to make it more specific. I also edited the list of services.

I am in the process of verifying that Ferdinand Gottlieb worked at SOM; in an Internet search, I cannot find a public reference to his working here. It is also not mentioned on his wikipedia page. We are currently checking our internal databases. Do you happen to have a reference for this?

Regarding the "key people" list in the infobox, I have been looking for guidelines on what types of people should be listed in company infoboxes (i.e. current key people only, current + historic people, historic people only, etc...) and could not find any guidelines on this so I assume it's up to editor discretion. What are your thoughts on only listing key people in the infobox who are no longer with SOM and/or deceased? Since the list is currently 11 people and adding more could become unwieldy, perhaps it makes sense to leave key people in the list of well-known architects, engineers and interior designers that is currently in the article body and eliminate "key people" from the infobox. This would keep the infobox smaller and keep its focus on the firm as a whole.

One last item--please remove the SOM.com logo from wikipedia since it is not the official SOM logo. The SOM.com logo is used on SOM.com only and is not the official logo that is used on letterhead and proposals.

Thank you, Kmsom (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits are fine with me. As for the key people, I just grabbed them from the list here . I'm not a SOM expert at all, so I have no idea if Gottlieb or the others actually worked there (except for Lagrange, the only one I really know something about). I think it's fine to trim names from the infobox but I'd like to keep the most important folks there. For one thing, Merrill wasn't really a founder since the firm was founded in 1936 and he didn't come on board until 1939, so we can't list him as a founder, but he definitely has to go somewhere. How about removing the others and just leaving him by himself? As for the logo, it's the only one I can find for them. Do you have one I can replace it with? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I did double-check and Gottlieb never worked here according to our records. I had completely missed him in the main list; in any case, I removed the name from the SOM Wiki page. I agree--keeping Merrill in the infobox makes sense. I do have an official SOM logo that you could use instead of the SOM.com logo. It happens to already be posted on the ctbuh site here: http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/events/Conferences/Chicago09/News/SOM.jpg. Is that sufficient? Thanks + have a good weekend. Kmsom (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding, I really needed a break from this nuthouse. I've updated the image and I'll remove Gottlieb from the article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jash


The article Jash has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Dubious foreign-language dicdef

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jash for deletion
The article Jash is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)