User talk:BigNate37/Archive 8

Spam or not
I went to the google answers web pages and I read the answers, and they led to an assortment of pages verifying the answers that were, basically spam. I've seen google answers in action, and the particular answers I looked at were atypical of google answers, which often are educational sites and authorative sites, it appeared to be a set of set-up questions with the intentions of luring users to certain sites with advertisements of products. Did you go and look at the google answer sites and click on the links as I did and reach a different conclusion? I used a standard Wikipedia template, and I only reverted once, not again as you stated. I still believe that this template applies to this situation based upon the evidence that I looked at: "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Stemming algorithm. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you." If the template is inappropriate advise all users it can't be used for the stated purpose, please! KP Botany 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements for performers:  A list of advertisements for movie posters:  And, google answers is not a vetted site, with reliable information, it is also a closed site, and it was, while in existence, a pay service. What about this isn't Spam, so I don't make the same mistake in the future? KP Botany 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I apologise for confusing another editor's message as being from you. You did however revert the removal of your warning with an edit summary that clearly shows your assumption of bad faith.


 * To the matters of the external links, Google Answers isn't a spam site. You gave links to questions that were looking for services to buy—answering with a link to someone selling services is not spam.


 * I took a look at one link listed by User:Vtcondo, and it contained thorough information and a pile of references (albeit references of poor enough quality to be inappropriate here). Sure, there's banner ads—but how can you possibly believe the user added those links with the intent to draw eyes to the advertising without assuming bad faith? Here's the three links Vtcondo listed:
 * http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=102907
 * http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=565437
 * http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=148664


 * One last thing I have to say is that you're having difficulty distinguishing between spam and other links that should be avoided per External links. Read Spam if you're unsure about it. For the record, I concede that external links to a discussion forum are not appropriate in articles and never argued differently. To be clear, this is and has has never been about getting the links added back in.


 * Now, please, in the future, assume good faith.  Big Nate 37 (T) 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not an assumption of good faith on your part: "You did not assume good faith in giving warnings to User:Vtcondo, accusing him/her of adding spam external links when the links were in fact not commercial in nature and so impossible to be spam." The spam template clearly defines spam other than how you have defined it.  I used it after investigating, thinking I had used the proper template.  I'll just stop patrolling for vandals, that will take care of the issue.  Today I found an article in which someone inserted nonsense 3 weeks ago, as I often find, because I watch obscure areas.  I don't care to get jumped all over again, though.  KP Botany 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KP Botany, while I agree with you that the external links added by Vtcondo shouldn't have been added, I agree with BigNate37 that it didn't help matters for you to forget to sign your comment on Vtcondo's User talk page, and then to include "you're still spamming" in your Edit summary for your reversion. It's no wonder Vtcondo lashed out at you, but you're right, deleting your comment from its User talk page was wrong.  I'm sorry if you feel you're getting jumped on, that's certainly not my intent and I don't think it's BigNate37's intent either.  Please don't be discouraged in continuing to make positive contributions to the project. -- Jeff G. 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the links were not appropriate per External links; the root of this issue is biting newcomers and failing to assume good faith. I believe Vtcondo was acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, and I can't understand why anyone would suspect s/he was spamming. I got involved in something that is arguably not my business through Vtcondo's question at the help desk, and it led me to discuss the issue with yourself and Vtcondo. Since you've taken to threatening to stop fixing articles, I assume you don't want to discuss it further, at least not in a civil manner. You certainly aren't on trial and I don't need to prove anything to anyone so I'll leave it alone and take your talk page off my watchlist. What I meant to do is introduce neutral third-party insight into the matter; it's up to you what you think of it. I'm sorry if I took to arguing with you about it, it was not my intent to make you feel as though you were on trial.  Big Nate 37 (T) 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If either of you had looked at my contributions you would have seen that I revert a lot of vandalism, sometimes very old stuff, and that I appear to always sign my contributions, even my vandal warnings, and I put accurate edit summaries on my posts. Dealing with vandals is very frustrating, as I'm not particularly internet or computer savvy.  It was only a few days ago, after 3 months of reverting, that I finally figured out the undo button.  This had made dealing with vandals and poorly-intentioned newcomers particularly onerous for me.  In spite of which, I put useful and appropriate warnings on people's talk page, learned how to put newcomer welcomes on talk pages, and always checked all contributions when someone did something inappropriate, so I could revert everything if necessary.  It was a bad combination of forgetting to sign, simply because it was the first time in 3 months of using Wikipedia to deal with inappropriate edits that I could remember, without going to the vandalism tags, how to do the template and which one to use, and I got irritated that the user simply deleted it, while I was still busy checking whatever it was he had been doing--so I snapped at him.  As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia I assure you I have been bitten, slapped and spit upon by established users for long enough that I can't respect BITE as anything more than a weapon used against certain people, which seemed to be what the two of you were doing, it was not necessary for the two of you to come after me in tandem over this.  And, yes, I do need to seriously consider stop fixing articles, not because I'm making an uncivil threat to do so, but because so much of Wikipedia is hostile, that I would like to simply avoid doing things that put me in situations where I am bitten.  Both of you could have assumed a bit of good faith on my part.  KP Botany 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect discussion
I see you are heavily involved in the redirect deletion discussion, so I thought I'd ask you the following: Another editor and I strongly disagree whether a redirect should point to a certain article. I think it should point to one article, he thinks it should point to another. I would like to solicit comments from other editors to see if more editors believe he is correct or I am correct. What is the best way to start such a discussion? Should I start a WP:RfC page?

I already saw the Redirects for discussion page, but that seems more focused on which redirects should be deleted. I don't want to delete the redirect, I just want to change it, but that raises the ire of the other editor. Please advise.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, RfD used to be Redirects for Deletion until a certain admin changed that somewhat controversially based on the fact that it isn't a strict keep/delete process, so you're right in noticing it's practically a deletion vote (in style, not in process). I'd say it could be disambiguated, but listing at RfD wouldn't hurt. You could mention the alternatives you'd like people to consider in your RfD nomination, i.e. keep, redirect elsewhere, disambig, etc. and that should keep things away from a binary keep/delete mentality.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the advice. I made the article a disambiguation page for now, but I might propose a page move in the future.  I didn't list it on RfD becasue I noticed that one of the "guiding principles" on RfD is "RfD is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article."  I don't want to rankle anyone who believes in this principle.


 * Along the lines of what you said, I think it's kind of weird that it's called "Redirects for discussion" if one of the guiding principles discourages discussion. Perhaps one of you can have a look at the Template:RfD.  Maybe it should be reworded to show that delete/not delete is not the only option being considered.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Asperger's redirect
Nate - it looked like a pretty clear attack page to me, and I can't imagine anyone coming up with that spelling. Making fun of people with developmental disorders is not cool. Anyway, it had been deleted twice before, making it eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4. If you want to take it to DRV, be my guest, but I'm not undeleting it. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I'll give it some thought and worry about it later, I'm on my way out the door. Would you like me to notify you if I take it to DRV?  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blueprint Law
I have added a "" template to the article Blueprint Law, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Jerry lavoie 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I cleaned up the article while on new pages patrol to make it read less like an advertisement, but I do not intend to do anything to fix issues related to WP:CORP nor do I intend to remove the proposed deletion template.  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For your readiness to help


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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. ... and, above all, for your introspection. Cheers! &mdash; Sebastian 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

* and :
Sure. I didn't know there was a difference -- they looked similar in output. Is there a page that explains it? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email)
 * Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia is a good place to look for this type of thing, and so is the Cheatsheet. There exist also How to edit a page and Help:Editing... I never realised how many places have similar things, and none of those that I saw explain indentation markup well. Anyways, the colon prefix creates an indent and is popular in discussion on talk pages—check out my indentation guide for an example of (what I think is) a good way to indent discussions. XfDs are a bit of an exception in that they generally use bulleted lists, though there's no hard and fast rule. So if you're looking for a reference page which explains what markup to use when, I'm not so sure there is one that covers everything.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect Delete template
Would it be possible to put the "speedy" template on the Criteria for speedy deletion page's infobox. Either under the "speedy" category, or under the "Redirect" category? The other article speedies are listed, but this one isn't. There isn't an easy way to find the  template! SkierRMH 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * db-r1 is actually a redirect to db-redirnone. I think it is silly to have names like this when the CSD are by number, but all of the db-_# templates I have looked at are just redirects to their names. There does exist, however, a db-_# for every type and number of CSD criterion, i.e. db-a1, db-a2, db-g4, etc. So listing them there would just be listing redirects to templates that are already listed—hopefully it is enough to know that these exist in the first place, for every criterion.  Big Nate 37 (T) 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I was just trying to keep it reverted until an Admin had a look. Is there a policy on removing warnings? John Reaves 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no policy around the issue, but take a look at Centralized discussion/Removing warnings. In this case I would say since you were the one involved with the alleged personal attacks it's not a great idea to warn the user yourself; it seems to just be making him upset.  Big Nate 37 (T) 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply 2
When you stop being a jackass I'll allow your comments to remain on my talk page

I never started. What's your excuse?

I hope I don't have to explain why snide remarks, sarcasm, and thinly veiled insults aren't sitting well with me

See Rule #5 on my Talk Page for why insulting my intelligence doesn't sit well with me. And in your case, why are snide remarks, sarcasm, and overt insults A-OK? Or is it different for the little people, as Leona Helmsley once said?

appearantly [sic] I can be insulted for explaining a courtesy notice

Apparently you believe that your "explanations" cannot or should not be questioned, and the mere questioning of them constitutes "insults". If you can explain how an unquestionable pronouncement constitutes "courtesy", I'd be interested to know the reasoning behind that, as you seem to be using some very peculiar metrics.

so next time you prod something I disagree with I'll just revert you without comment.

If you're unwilling or incapable of explaining or justifying your actions, you ought not to have done them, or do them in the future. Simple. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Take another look at this. I doubt many people would agree that your original reply was appropriate; it was quite hostile and by no means a mere questioning of my explanation. That is why I took offense to it and that is why I removed it from my page. I admit my reaction only made the situation worse, and I should have cooled off some before replying. Responding in kind is never wise. Anyways, I'm going to go for supper so if you reply again I'll not be around for a while. Sorry about the assholery on my part.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thank you for reversing the vandalism to my Talk Page. I didn't see it, but I assume it was Yet Another Primetime sock attack. --Calton | Talk 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Never seen anyone transclude the MoS that many times before.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)