User talk:Tothwolf/Archive 4

Orphaned non-free media (File:ByxnetLogo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:ByxnetLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:External link
External link was not a valid CSD G4 as it was not the same template which was deleted on November 29, 2008 as I created that metatemplate from scratch while working with others on a way to standardise our external link templates. Please restore this template. Thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll trust you on that, but you happened to create a template that's identical to the one that was already deleted. Regardless of whether the material was reposted or independently recreated just as it was before, it's subject to deletion under G4.  Would you like to improve on it somehow?  If so, I can restore it and give you the coding.  Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no way it could be identical. I created it from scratch during this discussion. Reusing the same name as a past template does not make for a G4. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the original code? As far as I can see, it's essentially the same thing.  Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I've never seen it. I created the current version from scratch during the discussion I linked to so I would think it would be impossible for them to be identical. (You can reply here, I much prefer to keep discussions in one place.) --Tothwolf (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to restore this template and the /doc subpage? This was clearly a bad G4 tagging as G4 does not apply to something that merely has the same page name as something that was previously deleted (which is something to take up with UnitedStatesian later). --Tothwolf (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because it had the same content as the previously deleted page. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may, maybe you're only looking at the previews of the template revisions, which look fairly similar. The template that was discussed in the TfD had the content  [ ] , and it was deleted since it was an extremely trivial markup wrapper. Tothwolf's template was a 2k monster with lots of options, judging by the doc page, to which the reasoning from the TfD does not apply. No opinion on the usefulness of the new template, I haven't read the discussion that the led to the this new version. Amalthea  21:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was getting ready to ask someone to send me a copy of the template that previously lived at External link as I was sure it couldn't be identical to the meta-template I wrote in November 2009. The meta-template is intended to eventually be used to help standardise the mess of external link templates we use such as those in Category:External link templates. I held off converting a handful of templates such as Official, Freshmeat, etc in November due to the other stuff I had going on at the time... --Tothwolf (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Collapse discussion on Talk:Comparison_of_S.M.A.R.T._tools
Would you mind if we collapse the discussion on the Talk:Comparison_of_S.M.A.R.T._tools, it appears to be causing hostility among the other users. Cheers. --Hm2k (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The old discussion from September 2009 before we began to work things out? I don't have a problem with that as it looks like it is stale anyway. I've not been following the later discussions. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. --Hm2k (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Taelus  ( Talk ) 16:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied again. Regards, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry if the post on my talk page and my edit summary sounded rude. Right now, I'm dealing with POV pushers on a certain article and a member who wants to keep an article just based on Google hits. Joe Chill (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding POV pushers, I certainly know the feeling as I've been watching two opposing camps go at it elsewhere. That said, as for it really is up to you to know the subject you are nominating for AfD, before making the nomination. I have no desire whatsoever to get involved in AfD right now but now that you have more information, you can work on fixing those two articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

High traffic on History of beer
The template was initially intended as a short term alert so editors could be aware of likely vandalism. It was not intended to remain on a page for ever. It now marks an historical incident that belongs in the archives.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your page notice as I was saving. I don't watchlist people's talkpages, and tend not to come back, so if you only reply here it's unlikely I'll see it. Up to you, but if you do have a reply for me it's best to leave it on my talkpage otherwise I might miss it. I find it helps to cut and paste the whole conversation so everything is kept together.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The original template was and was a short term template intended to be placed directly on the article page and not the talk page. At that time the template looked like this. In November 2005 it was nominated for TfD, the outcome of which was to turn it into a generic template instead of being Slashdot specific, and use it on the talk page instead of the article. User:Phil Boswell converted it to a talk notice template  and updated the transclusions:     etc. Unfortunately this note on Template talk:High traffic was never updated, nor was it removed when High traffic/doc was created. It seems to have caused some confusion in that some people still thought High traffic was still a temporary template, which was originally only the case because it was used on the article page instead of the talk page. We do not remove Press (intended for print articles which mention the Wikipedia article) and we do not remove Onlinesource (for use when a print article uses the Wikipedia article as a source) so there is no reason to remove High traffic which is used when a high traffic (usually news) website links to a Wikipedia article. Moving High traffic to an archive page also breaks the template, as can be seen when you moved it to the archive page here. As you probably noticed, I've also been working on improving the High traffic template itself. I recently added support for stats.grok.se (which was somewhat of a challenge). stats.grok.se unfortunately does not have complete data for everything and while it works for some articles which were linked in 2007, the datasets for 2007 seem quite spotty and random. From about 2008 onward the datasets are much better and are almost always available. I plan to eventually rework the page parameter, which will allow for more flexibility for the template to be placed on a page and link to a different page, but for now that does not work. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC) We also don't remove the DKY, main page, or in the news notices from talk pages... What would be the point in even having any of these templates if you remove them? It made perfect sense to remove the original template in 2005 when it was used the way it was on the article page ("Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism."), but it makes no sense to remove the current template from the talk page today. The template does not take up very much room and it is collapsible (defaulting to collapse when 4 or more sites are included in the template). This sort of support alone shows that this template is not intended to be a "temporary" template. Again, we do not remove Press and Onlinesource so there is no reason to single out High traffic. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There actually seems to have been some confusion around whether or not High traffic is a "temporary" template subject to removal.
 * You could try to gain consensus to retain the template permanently on talkpages, though I would not support such a suggestion as the template is a low-value one. That an article gained momentary attention several years ago is of little interest today, and such information belongs as part of the history in the archives rather than being visible as something that requires someone's attention right now. We archive much more pertinent discussions about articles in order to free up talkpages for what is currently important. What value do you feel is being gained by having such information on current display? And do you feel whatever value is gained overrides the imperative to keep information on the talkpage current and pertinent? If a page becomes too crowded with templates there is an information overload and the value of ALL information on the page becomes diminished.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There has never been any consensus for removing this template either. "What value do you feel is being gained by having such information on current display?" It is a historical record. Being able to link to stats.grok.se now makes it even more valuable. From a research standpoint, this data is actually quite valuable but if you remove the template there is no way to track and find it.

I had a look to see if there was any prior discussion on the issue of templates on talkpages that might provide some guidance. The two most useful I found are: Talk page layout and Talk page guidelines, though neither address our concerns of when (or if) to move a template to the archives. That we are in disagreement and are unable to find a solution might suggest that others may also be unclear on what to do. I will start a general discussion on archiving templates on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, with a link from Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) With High traffic specifically, it does allow a WikiProject to tell at a glance if other sites consider the article to be of high value by way of linking to it. We already use basic hit data for WikiProject Popular pages (see WP:COMP/PP for the Computing WikiProject's data) and being able to say with some degree of accuracy that "site x linked to article y on 1 Jan 2009" in order to show where that traffic came from can be quite useful. For example, see Talk:Walter Gropius and the May 2008 stats. Another example is Talk:Logan's Run. We know that Slashdot linked to it on May 15, but which high traffic site linked to it on May 6? It is also always possible to do something like what I did on Talk:Malamanteau with CollapsedShell, which I did specifically to shorten the top of the talk page due to all the incoming traffic. It seems to be an acceptable solution when collapsing multiple Press, High traffic, etc templates but I'm not sure that this should be done on a regular basis. It certainly is helpful for an extremely active talk page such as that one though. Ordinarily I would have used the multiple options of High traffic instead (see Talk:Tsar Bomba and Talk:Gullibility), but the way the template is currently written that wasn't an option because I wanted to handle each of those 3 cases very differently. I also find WikiProjectBannerShell, WikiProjectBanners, and Skip to talk helpful in some of these cases. Another template commonly seen which I meant to mention before is ArticleHistory. I also noticed that High traffic is shown on Template messages/General but others such as Press, Onlinesource, etc are missing. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, I can certainly see how others might end up in a similar situation. In thinking about this further, I think the concept of a "low value template" is subjective though. What might be considered "low value" to one individual or project might be considered valuable to another.

Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2
Hi, Tothwolf. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tothwolf/Bash.org
An editor has asked me to revisit the outcome of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/Bash.org. Four months have elapsed since the MfD and six months since the article was userfied, and the article has remained virtually unchanged—by extension, the reason for which the article was deleted at AfD remains unaddressed.

Do you think that you will be able to improve the article in the near future in order to address the original reasons for deletion? If you no longer intend to work on the article, or if the sources simply aren't there, then please indicate this so that the draft does not needlessly remain as an archive of deleted material. If you do not intend or lack the time to work on it now but would like to revisit it in the future, then I urge you to consider saving it off-wiki. If the same MfD had taken place now (6 months post-userfication, instead of 2 months), there would have been clear consensus to delete.

I am contacting you in the hope that you can clarify whether and how you intend(ed) to use the draft. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While there is no deadline, I've added some of my notes to the talk page here. I do not believe statements such as the one User:Blaxthos made in the MfD "I further suggest that it can never be improved to the point of inclusion in Wikipedia, as there are no (and will likely never be) any reliable sources dealing with the subject." hold any water when sources such as this book which make a strong case for notability are easily located:  --Tothwolf (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "No deadline" does not apply in the same way to normal article content as it does to previously deleted content. Specifically, intent and ability (i.e., whether adequate coverage in reliable sources exists) to develop or improve a draft are significant factors—the references and notes which you provided speak to that, though of course being mentioned or cited in published works is not the same as receiving substantial coverage in published works, which is the standard of notability. Again, if it is not likely that you will be able to work on the draft in the near future, saving it to an off-wiki text editor may be worth considering.


 * I appreciate your clarification, though, and I'll advise Blaxthos to take a look at the references you provided when considering whether to pursue deletion of the draft. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The notes which I've added to the talk page are far from a complete list of references but could make for a very strong case of notability. An alternative of course would be to merge the content and that of several other previously deleted articles into a larger article covering the topic of online quote databases.


 * It would probably be for the best if Blaxthos were to choose to be completely uninvolved in matters relating to Wikipedia's coverage of bash.org and other online quote databases due to his personal involvement (current owner of the "bash.org" domain) and perceived conflict of interest regarding the ownership history of bash.org and quote database itself. He is of course more than welcome to add suggestions to the talk page but the edit history of the article and past interaction with Blaxthos seems to indicate that he takes the article very personally and it may be very difficult for him to maintain a neutral point of view. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On that note: Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom amendment requested
Miami33139 (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have spoken in your defense, as have several other editors. Take heart. Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have some of the diffs you were looking for (and some other links which fit into this) which I'll leave for you on your talk page. I didn't post everything on AN/I as I was trying to keep my post there as short as I could. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Kellerman (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Amendment
You may wish to note that motions have been proposed that involve yourself on that page. NW ( Talk ) 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: 1), and  are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed.  This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started.  This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict.  They may request enforcement of this restriction at the Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.

2) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to " is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest Eggdrop
Are you the developer Tothwolf mentioned here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/irc/eggdrop/UPDATES/1.5/UPDATES1.5.4 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRWolfie- (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(links copied from Talk:Eggdrop and User talk:IRWolfie-): --Tothwolf (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theserialcomma&oldid=292847540#Eggdrop
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theserialcomma&oldid=297625563#Question
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=292830063
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=293572752
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_33&oldid=300944309#WP:Outing_hypothetical_question
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=292734731
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tothwolf&diff=prev&oldid=292738524

On the subject of COI
Hey Tothwolf, saw your request about COI on Jehochman's talk page, so I thought I'd drop by and spell it out as I see it. I'm writing this as though it were confirmed you were an Eggdrop developer, although I understand (and point out to any talk page lurkers) that you haven't actually confirmed that at this time.

A lot of the COI policy is about living persons, which for this case is irrelevant. In fact, in all the COI policy, the only sections that could be relevant are "Promotional article production on behalf of clients" and "Close relationships".

As far as I can tell, the whole COI meme started when Miami33139 and JBsupreme brought it against you in deletion discussions, suggesting that your keep votes were invalid because you were too closely involved with the product and thus not capable of being neutral. There are circumstances where that claim might have had some substance, but since Miami and JB were both into "Deletion by any means" style deletionism, and eventually got sanctioned by arbcom for being disruptive in their deletion argument, I think suppose most people will agree that their claims have little weight.

So, promotional writing? Well, I've seen nothing egregiously promotional, and there are multiple eyes on the article to clean up anything that might slip through. And close association? I see no criticism section on Eggdrop for you to whitewash/censor/suppress, the article has been declared notable by a comfortable margin, and all your edits are reliably sourced. The COI policy itself says ''An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse. However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject'', which I think is relevant here.

Also relevant is in the lede where it says Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline, which certain other entities might choose to take note of. Seth Kellerman (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The wikihounding/wikistalking actually began with Theserialcomma back on May 26, 2009, so it predates the mass-deletion behaviour from the other two individuals. I gave a detailed sequence of events and timeline in the evidence I provided during the ArbCom case. It really was only later after they joined up with Theserialcomma that the "COI meme" as it were, began to be repeated ad nauseam by these individuals in AfD and on other talk pages. My general feeling is that the personal attacks and behavioural issues that came to light during the last AN/I discussion and subsequent ArbCom case amendment request may have had a larger role in the amendment decisions. I still think it was rather unfortunate that the similar behaviour from Theserialcomma was not addressed at the time as that seems to have been taken by Theserialcomma as carte blanche to continue on with the disruptive behaviour and personal attacks.  I don't think Eggdrop would ever really need any outside promotion and I addressed this very subject in part of a reply I made to Theserialcomma during the ArbCom case in which I said: "I have no interests in using Wikipedia to promote Eggdrop or any other projects which I've contributed to. Quite frankly, none of those projects even need any sort of outside promotion and as a simple Google search clearly shows,  the meager Wikipedia article isn't even the top search result and doesn't really even get that many daily hits  either."  I was also surprised just how much coverage could be seen from a simple Google Books search  (which doesn't even include some of the better books about IRC, such as The Book of IRC by Alex Charalabidis ISBN 1886411298). I tried to address the rest of Theserialcomma's COI claims in the larger reply, although I have no idea if it was read by any arbitrators at the time because it was moved to the talk page by one of the case clerks. I know Theserialcomma at least read it, based on subsequent personal attacks made right on the case pages.  I would actually like to work on expanding the Eggdrop article at some point, including adding some criticism. I pretty much had to stop working on it back in May 2009 when the wikihounding/wikistalking began, which also prevented me from working on other complex tasks such as the mergers of many smaller articles into Modular connector and Registered jack (where I'm currently reading over BSP [Bell System Practice] standards documents in preparation for using them as references and citations). Hopefully I can find some time to get back to work on Cite IETF and a number of other projects before long too. I suppose one good thing did come from the latest round of wikihounding by Theserialcomma on Eggdrop, and that is I was made aware of a book named Bots: The Origin of New Species by Andrew Leonard (ISBN 1888869054 and ISBN 0140275665) which appears to cover some of Eggdrop's early history, and may possibly even include details and other small facts which have been lost or forgotten about over the last 16-17 years since Eggdrop was first created. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Expand templates RfC
Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Tothwolf (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say hello and respect
I have read a little about your experiences here and must say that I dislike what I saw and how you were treated. There seem to be many issues within the project that really must be dealt with. Who knows, maybe in time things will change. If ever there comes such a time, count on my vote. Maybe I watch too many movies, but I remember a cute quote from one;
 * Rise and Rise Again Until Lambs Become Lions. Turqoise 127  05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Expand
Just curious — have you ever seen the expand template used for its actual purpose? Literally 100% of the time that I've seen it, it's just been a drive-by tagging with the tagger never explaining what needs expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have, and I've also made use of it when I previously worked more in the main namespace. As for drive-by tagging, I've seen Notability and Unreferenced abused far more often than say Expand. I seem to remember lengthy discussions regarding such drive-by tagging as well. I suppose one way we could discourage drive-by tagging in general is to make it mandatory to post a notice to the talk page explaining the reasoning for adding each template when tagging (such as we do for POV), although that might be difficult. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Delrev
I've posted a question for you at Template talk:Delrev. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your activity with ANI
Please remember to notify users who you discuss at ANI by using. Thank you, D u s t i *poke* 18:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Expand template
Hello! As Template:Expand has been deleted, is there any reason to keep User:Tothwolf/Expand testcases? Would you protest a deletion? Hey Mid  (contribs) 20:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I created it and later moved it to my userspace in order to keep it, so yes, I would prefer that it be left alone. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry for not noticing that. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 14:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients
Can we work together to actually write down the explicit inclusion criteria per WP:LIST for items, as mentioned in my comment responding to you? --Lexein (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied to you on the talk page. I hope my reply there will help you better understand my view on this. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing that vandalism from my userpage ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Some days it just seems a lot like Whac-A-Mole. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Media_copyright_questions
thanks for posting there. what should i do next? wait until the committee emails me back? how long will that take? Decora (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not previously had to follow up with the Audit Subcommittee so I have no idea how long it would usually take. Have you considered emailing Geoff Brigham or the WMF directly to see if someone received an actual DMCA takedown notice? I would think someone with the WMF would at least be able to tell us that much since this is something the community would need to know about. Chilling Effects would also probably want to know if the WMF did receive a DMCA takedown for something like this. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

inclusion criteria in lists
I wonder if we are reading the same policies. WP:V doesn't say "you can add anything to the article as soon as you can find a source for it, even if it's just the programmer's comments in the source code of the program". And have you actually read WP:SPS? Please actually read this text before claiming againg that WP:SPS allows you to use any and all self-published source for anything: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.". --Enric Naval (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cited WP:SELFPUB not WP:SPS. As others have pointed out, we can use a software program's own documentation or source code to cite "Program X supports feature Y". Using a source in this way is acceptable, however we can't use it to draw our own conclusion of "Program A is better than program B because program A supports feature C" because that would be original research. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth to try to deceive and mislead others. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:SELFPUB says "(...) as long as (...) 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." And you are proposing to include programs that are supported only by such sources...... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to argue notability again, we actually do have 3rd party sources available which establish notability for roughly 75% of the clients we should be covering here (including many that were removed as "red-links"). Per your own argument, this means we are quite ok per WP:SELFPUB. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Email received. I'm not willing to reply by email to you, so per WP:EMAIL, I'm just going to post a very general reply here. I'm going to simply discuss the only part that really seems to need a reply: your concern about involvement. I've never kept my residence especially secret; my contribs and several off-wiki sites make it pretty clear. Living in a place does not make you involved on all content issues related to it, only the ones you choose to edit. So no, I didn't forget WP:INVOLVED. It just doesn't apply here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your contribution history shows a number of things. While I could have justifiably called you out publicly, I thought it better to email you as to not to give your detractors anything else they could use for disruption. Even though you are only responding to a fraction of what I said, I hope you take what I said to heart because that sort of thing tends to lead to others questioning your actions as a whole. While your rationale for responding here isn't something WP:EMAIL covers, per WP:EMAIL you don't have my permission to be passing around my email to you (either in full or in part) as it is not licensed under the GFDL or Creative Commons license and is not licensed for redistribution. [And just so we can put an end to a possible "witch hunt", a lot of people mentioned to me what happened. Keep that in mind next time you decide to rant about someone.] --Tothwolf (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your email

 * Yes, I saw you (IMO) harassing Ravenswing. So I took a look at the AfD and expressed my opinion. I don't perceive myself as "fighting" with you, simply expressing my own opinions in an AfD. I happen to disagree with a lot of your opinions and the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia. However, my opinions on the matters discussed at the AFD are long-standing ones and are not made up simply to "fight" you. What difference does it make how someone stumbles upon an AfD and why would you think I would care whether or not you knew or could figure out the path by which I came to notice the AfD? I certainly didn't bother to look through the AfD to find out what your position was, but rather simply looked at the article and its glaring lack of reliable sources in order to arrive at my conclusion. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Everything doesn't revolve around you, you know... Yworo (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Inclusionist essay
I have an essay in development (Every snowflake is unique) intended to describe ways to keep well-sourced specialized and/or local content. Would you mind to have a look at it and share your opinion? (Most of the ideas are at the talk page). Diego Moya (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Claritas
I gather that you have received an email claiming that I am a sockpuppet of Claritas. I just want to make it clear that this is completely untrue. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He actually didn't say one way or the other, but given his comment of "If tothwolf's wondering about the e-mail I sent him, it was deliberately trying to be annoying and unclear." he probably is trying to mislead us. I suspect that may mean I actually was onto something with that third account, and if so, time will tell. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for making that clear. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
—Farix (t &#124; c) 11:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami
Dude, quit edit warring, ok? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied here (permlink). (Despite Ravenswing's assertion, no edit warring had actually taken place. Also see AN/I and follow-up.) --Tothwolf (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Powerpole.JPG
You removed the replaceable fair use warning tag I placed on this image without providing a rationale as to how this image is not replaceable. Disagreeing isn't sufficient. Please explain yourself? Please understand that whether a free image is available right now or not is not a criteria. The criteria, as noted in WP:NFCC #1, is could one be created? Since this is a item that exists and is apparently in use in many locations, there's no reason why a wikipedia editor could not take a picture of it and release it under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I already replied in the AN/I discussion. I also already explained if such connectors were available for purchase, we could take a photo of one. That isn't the case, unfortunately. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this object exist? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of "not available" is not clear? Unless you can convince the manufacturer to manufacture you a sample part, then no, it does not exist. I'm sure they would be more than happy to manufacture a 100,000 qty batch if you would like though. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see several pictures of them actually in use; i.e. they actually exist. Since they exist, a photograph can be taken, can it not? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The connectors were custom made for a prototype installation (which apparently no longer exists). See the AN/I thread for more info. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And according to someone else, they can in fact be ordered. Further, while the text it is used in two articles mention the connectors there's, no loss to reader understanding for not having the image. There's nothing significant about the visual characteristics of the design that requires the image to be present. That's a failure of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are misreading there, but no, that specific connector cannot be readily ordered as it was a custom part. There are similar connectors available from the manufacturer, but not that specific connector (and "similar" isn't good enough when it isn't functionally compatible and does not illustrate the same thing). This is a case where "details" are important... --Tothwolf (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it exist or not? If it doesn't exist, why even include it? If it's going to exist, then what is special about the appearance of the thing that it MUST be included in the article in order for the reader to understand the article? What is special about its visual appearance that makes it so different that we must have it? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times must I repeat myself to you? It no longer exists. Our best chance for getting a free photo is from LBL, which I mentioned in the AN/I discussion. Those familar with topics such as this and electrical connectors in general will understand why it is important to give examples of connectors. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you would tone down your hostile tone. Saying things like "What part of "not available" is not clear?", "I'm not sure what you are misreading there" and "How many times must I repeat myself to you?" adds heat to discussion, not light. As to the point, if this is an upcoming item that has been in the development process since at least 2007 (according to one design drawing), and it is going to be used, I find it hard to believe they would destroy all existing copies of the thing, wouldn't you? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just tired of repeating myself. If we didn't have a photo to illustrate say a NEMA 5-15 (File:Domestic AC Type B USA.jpg), would you know what it was? Photos of electrical connectors are important. If you would, please follow up in the AN/I discussion instead of here as the "orange bar" is rather distracting (otherwise I'll need to modify my vector.css to disable it for now). --Tothwolf (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (last orange bar from me to you forever) The WP:AN/I thread is an inappropriate location to be discussing this image. No admin intervention is required to discuss the replaceability of the image. So no, I will not discuss it there as it is pointless to do so. Sorry for taking up your time, and please forgive the intrusion on your talk page. Goodbye, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and such there is nothing wrong with discussing this in the existing discussion on AN/I, and the discussion was already in progress. Moving part of it here just fragmented the discussion and the orange bar distracts from me working on other things (which I might not get to today, now). --Tothwolf (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)