User talk:Technobadger/Archive 1

Red Hat IP
Good catch. Probably a good idea to leave a note on the user's page, though; it's more of a content disagreement than vandalism, so should at least be brought up with the user. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will leave a note, good idea. Technobadger (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sources
I see you've been deleting sources, commenting: I'm not aware of any rule which requires that sources be freely-available. That does apply to external links, but we use many sources that require some kind fo fee or registration. Removing sources should only be done for very good reasons. Would you mind undoing those deletions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * rm reference to World Book which requires log-in


 * I absolutely agree.
 * you deleted only some of the commercial products. -> can you explain why? You are definitely doing manipulation!!!
 * please undo this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersArnd (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When a user clicks on those World Book links, they're redirected to the World Book home page, rather than prompt for a login to resume access to the page they were linked to. This is as good as a broken link in my opinion, so I'd prefer to leave the deletions in place.  Technobadger (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whell another option would be to re-do the ciation so that it says something like {"Mali", World Book Online Encyclopedia, [convenience link to home page], accessed 1/13/08]. That way the source would be kept but it would be clearer for readers. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. I did think it odd though, that the user whose edits I reverted had added eight references with external links to worldbook.com, in eight separate articles, between 17:54 and 18:06. Note that one of the edit summaries is simply "ed". Browse back in that user's contrib history, and you'll see that they add a lot of references linking to that site, all of which redirect to worldbook.com if you're not already logged in. The editor in question does lots of great work, but all this linking to the one site looked like linkspamming to me, though I could be wrong. I haven't posted about it on their talkpage yet, since someone already has at User talk:Marlith. Technobadger (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being flexible. Tertiary sources like other encyclopedias are not the best sources for most Wikipedia articles. I noticed your edits because I have on my watchlist the article on World Book, where the encyclopedia was used a primary source for the size of the work. There may be other cases in which it's less appropriate, and if you don't think it's a good source in those cases then leave it off. As for Marlith I'd assume good faith. I've used the online World Book and once you're logged in it's natural to think that links will work. He may not have realized that the external links redirect to the home page. I suggest dropping him a note if he continues to add sources in that format. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes will do, thanks. And you're right, all the evidence from the way that user works indicates good faith. Technobadger (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry
The other day I just miss read the column name on that bitpump thing. But I think there should be a column for freeware and shareware as well. DJAikou (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, just a correction. Agreed about being more inclusive on licenses. How about we instead change the column heading from "Free" to "License" then, and change the entries from a "yes/no" to the license type (freeware/GPL/Apache/etc), like in List of content management systems? Technobadger (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea!DJAikou (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability question
Just wondering how I can better clarify the Union Theatre's NOTABILITY for the article I've started. Including the reference to it in the 1996 edition of The Rover (play) where the theatre was noted for its production of the rare text I felt gave a good bit of notability to the theatre.

I do have more information to add to the site to increase its notability forthcoming, including a connection to a visit from a famous Canadian Playwright Timothy Findlay.

Are these two elements what one would be looking for to add notability?

The "speedy deletion" tag was removed by the admin a few days ago after she noted that it was not an advertising site since the theatre has been closed for over 10 years. Have you chosen then to add in this new "notability" tag to help me clarify things? I greatly appreciate you doing it so nicely (some of my Wikipedia correspondance hasn't always been so kind).--Germahughes (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it was me that removed the deletion tag in this edit. I then replaced it with the notability tag in this edit, to stop an over-zealous admin from tagging it for deletion again. :-) You've done a great job on establishing notability.  If you want to know more about that, then Notability is your best starting point.  Mentions in mainstream publications (books, journals & newspapers etc.) is one usual route for this, but I'd say you've clearly established it by now, and should just focus on adding text and picture content to the article. Thanks for all your work on this. Technobadger (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for all the help - indeed more content and pictures are on the way. :)--Germahughes (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock case reopened
A suspected sock case you filed has been reopened and reassessed. Please see Suspected sock puppets/Rohit tripathi60.

Best,

FT2 (Talk 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help
I need assistance in building a sock puppet case against the user you warned on my talk page. I've never done one before, but I think I have documented things well. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Be on it in a moment... Technobadger (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to what I've started. Thanks again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The same user appears to be at it again with another IP address. &#151;Whoville (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, and now a third: User:OrlandoLogic. Not a problem- a lot of admins have noticed it now. The pages involved will simply go to page protection with his changes reverted, if he keeps trying new accounts and IPs.  Technobadger (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Block IP
How do we block that IP address of 74.163.223.240? They've been warned numerous times, and it's doing is being disruptive. I don't have admin access, so I can't do anything about it. EaglesFanInTampa 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This IP appears to be a sock puppet. See the discussion above, and please feel free to help bolster the case. I started it but don't know how to follow through, and I have asked Technobadger to help. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PS to Techno: forgive me for responding on your own talk page, but I figure all the help we can get would be, well, helpful.
 * Looks from here like you've done everything right. Can't think of anything more to add.  All we need now is for the admins to run a Checkuser, and confirm sockpuppetry.  I've tagged User:74.163.223.240, which he'll probably attempt to delete shortly, which will also bolster your case. :-)
 * I'll list him at Administrator intervention against vandalism now. Technobadger (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks a lot for your help!  Now, maybe we can get back to the tasks at hand! :-D EaglesFanInTampa 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anytime. :-) Technobadger (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He's rude and incivil, but he seems to be acting in good faith. He isn't trying to cause deliberate damage to Wikipedia articles, rather he is trying to improve them in his own mind.  That is why it isn't vandalism.  If this pattern of edits represents a problem that requires someone to actually take the time to investigate (such as parsing through numerous difs and analyzing talk page patterns and motives and multiple edits for disruption or for acting against consensus) then it is expressly NOT what AIV is for.  If it takes someone more than about 10 seconds to say "Yup, this is vandalism", it should be reported elsewhere and not AIV.  Given the complexity of the situation, WP:ANI is a more approrpriate venue.  I am not saying that a block would be wrong for this IP, its just that AIV is not set up to handle these sorts of nuanced or complex situations.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)