User talk:Bbatsell/Archive6

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revive an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Thanks

Thank you for your prompt action in regards to my impostor. This guy has been giving me a bit of a headache for a while. Thanks again. Parsecboy 21:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in response to your question on the AN/I board, Jetwave and I had a run in when an article he created was nominated for deletion (not by me, I just kept reverting his removal of the deletion template on the page in question, and then voted for deletion). He started vandalizing my page (and others) until he was blocked; likely created parasecboy (talk · contribs) as an attempt to impersonate me, which was blocked indefinitely, followed by User:Winky Bill, who was recently indef blocked for harassing me, and now User:Nathan G. Ott. Not to mention he created the email address [email protected] to harass me as well. He's a pest, but nothing more. Parsecboy 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of User:Nate Ott. I listed the article he recreated that redirected to my userpage. Is there anyway it can be deleted and salted, so he cannot continue to recreate it? Thanks again for your help. Parsecboy 18:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate your help. Parsecboy 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. Regards, Parsecboy 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied page

FYI, User:Psycholgymajor101 has copied your user page onto his talk page. I've removed references to an admin position from it, but otherwise there's not strictly anything stopping him from using it. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Still the same including all of your links. (That's how I got here.) He's copied your page down to your contribs, user page, talk page, admin log, etc. never even bothered to edit anything down to make it any different. I had considered blanking it myself to get rid of at least the false links but didn't want to get myself banned for trying to be a good Samaritan. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

He did a little bit more than that ;). Thanks for the heads up, guys. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Hello Bbatsell. Your edit on Conservapedia, deleting the "See also" section in such manner wasn't a good idea. However, assuming that you may reconsider your decision, please read the articles on GodTube, MyChurch, etc. Those were useful links, related to the subject. --Dukered 03:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I quote from WP:SEEALSO:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid. A See also section should ideally not [contain] links that are only vaguely related to the topic... Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section. A good practice is to treat subjects in a "See also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "See also" section deprecated and removed).

None of those articles were anything more than vaguely related and could not reasonably be made into article text. If you can, then wonderful. That would be much more helpful to the reader than a list of links to other articles with no clear connection. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you should edit GodTube, which is an alternative to YouTube (much like Conservapedia is to Wikipedia), and MyChurch, which "has been compared to other Christian websites such as Xianz, DittyTalk, GodTube and Conservapedia", according to the entry I just read here on WP. Honestly, you're wrong. Dukered 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Then edit it into Conservapedia's text, like it is at GodTube. "See also" sections, much like "trivia" sections, are a crutch to avoid writing an encyclopedia. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

not sure which speedy category this page falls under...

... but I'm sure West Eurasia must be speediable - mixture of G10 attack page / G1 nonsense / A1 no context / something else? Saw you were busy at CSD and thought I'd run it past you. Any thoughts? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oof. Yeah, I'd probably go with G10 on it, although it's a bit borderline. However, looking at the article it's addressing, he kind of has a point. The article cites 1 person who uses that term for that region. I'm going to be off WP for the next few hours so I can't do a whole lot about it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I put a custom-made "db-reason" on it, saying it's not an article, it's a WP:POINT page. Let's see what someone else makes of it! Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's gone. Bencherlite^Talk 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Helibanner

We are company who owns the trademark, HELI-BANNER (or similarily confusing: helibanner, helibanners, heli-banner or heli-banners), and we are trying to avoid any infringements or possible complications. If you could please remove this page from your listings altogether it will help us defend and protect our registered trademark in the english language. There are other ways to describe "helicopter banners" and we are advised you change this and remove the title by our legal team right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.99.21 (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ScottyFracture block premature?

Perhaps I've created a false impression regarding User talk:ScottyFracture#Blocked. The blocking policy requires "persistent vandalism" and as seen on Special:Contributions/ScottyFracture the vandalism has stopped. By itemizing all the articles within a single vandalism session I may have created a false impression for 3rd parties. The intended audience was the vandal. To you I apologize and thank you for your support. – Conrad T. Pino 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He vandalized today's featured article (John Mayer) twice after that batch of warnings. It's a standard vandalism-only account, and since the vandalism was "subtle", it was an even more dangerous one to leave lying around. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed – Conrad T. Pino 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize once again, the vandalism did not stop. The block is appropriate. – Conrad T. Pino 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there mofo

What you don't unnastand is that I am JANE GOODALL. GREAT MAN GREAT MAN Now, if you would represent your nation NATION OF WONDERS NATION OF AMAZING Then you would understand the truth of the CHIT THE CHIT (the Chit) THE CHIT YIPIPIPIPIPIP YIPIPIPIPIPIPIP YIPIPIPIPIPIPIPIP YIPIPIPIPIP IS THE BATTLE CALL IS THE BATTLE CALL THE CALL TO ARMS FOR ALL YOU YOUNG-UNS FACE FACE ME IN A DUEL So please restore the page Chit (animal) Please? -Landon

(All in caps is untrue and will never be validated) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landonmullet (talk • contribs)

No. You are free to request a review of my deletion at WP:DRV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pliz. In Trinidad, chit is like big Elvis man to USA!!! USA, USA, USA, USA, USA!!! We like to squash his mouth with it! He is big and will be hot from the Valcano palace. If we may have seen it, we has to put the big USa wiki for him. We do the scuttle to rock 'n' roll! Pliz, Chit (animal) to come back to us for more stomping.

--Jetset1989 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Bbatsell, just wanted to send you a personal message apologizing for if my response to your concern on ANI about deleting a threat-edit sounded at all patronizing. I was thinking of a precedent set at WP:SUICIDE which suggests that deletions are a good idea to remove it from the general population's view, although I understand your concern about wanting to make sure it's taken care of first. Hope no hard feelings. All the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 01:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it yet, but don't worry about it. I have pretty thick skin (and if anyone considered that to be patronizing then they need to get their meters checked :)). Deletion is probably for the best. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad to hear! I suppose as an admin you hear far far worse, eh? :) I like to err on the side of caution, so I figured it couldn't hurt in this confusing text-based medium to clarify my intentions. Here's to civility, AGF, and thick skins! :) ~Eliz81^(C) 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness

By using the term as part of his satirical routine, Colbert sought to criticize the use of truthiness as an appeal to emotion and a tool of rhetoric in contemporary socio-political discourse.

Hi. I think your edit of taking 'truthiness' above out of quotes is OK as an alternative to "from the gut", in quotes, which had been my edit. I had rephrased it to "from the gut" because, to my eye, the paragraph reads very strangely, as paragraph 1 says Colbert coined the word, and then paragraph 2 says he was satirizing the use of ... a word he just coined. I understand the meaning, but I think that if the above line were rephrased to state the definition rather than the word 'truthiness', it would be more clear (and eliminate this confusion, if it strikes anyone as oddly as it strikes me). Tempshill 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not ideal, but I didn't think "from the gut" made sense in context either. If we can figure out a way to reword it working in the definition/idea, that would be best. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you re: the sentence in the second paragraph "Colbert sought to criticize the use of truthiness..." that, there, quotes would be improper as it is not a case of use-mention distinction. But when you say "X is a term", you're talking about a word, and use-mention distinction applies to X. Robert K S 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. I didn't remove the quotes. Might point this out to Raul if he reverts you again. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thought it was you from your edit summary. Thanks for the reply and the agreement. Robert K S 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I warned him (again) and I'm keeping an eye on him. --Delta1989 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Obama revert

The WP standard is "veriable", not "verified". Simply reverting an edit without first asking for a cite is rude, and marking it as minor compounds the discourtesy. And the idea that it is NPOV to remove references to Obama's attempted censorship and oppoistion to fraud prevention is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm (talk • contribs)

I don't think you can call reverting an unreferenced addition rude. The burden is on the person making the addition to provide a citation. Some uncited additions get removed sooner than others, but you can't expect other editors to wait until you get around to providing sources. LloydSommerer 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)

• A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Zhan Li USC Survey

Hi there,

if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey

I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.

thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Hi Bbatsell, thanks for blocking the spammer/troll. I noticed you just added a ".blogspot.com" address to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. You might want to check out the report I made yesterday at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#.blogpost.com. There are many more blogspot URLs that need blacklisting. Would it be possible to simply blacklist the whole ".blogpost.com" domain? Also, if you look at the history of Saturday Nights, Sunday Mornings, you'll see why the name of that account you just blocked was similar to mine. Cheers. Spellcast 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to fully look into it right now, but I can't support blocking all of blogspot.com. It's one of (if not the) largest blog providers, and there are quite a few instances where linking to them would be appropriate. Just one example off the top of my head, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's blog is robertreich.blogspot.com. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. I see there are some legitimate blogs that can be linked here. But the ones in the above report should definitely be blocked though. Spellcast 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fundraising "harmful and stupid banner" or whatever the phrase was

The deletion was probably out of process, but it's also probably unproductive to go near that thread, as it seems to be particularly unconstructive, as I found out. I'd have preferred to keep it as well, but there were enough people becoming agitated that it made it a bit pointless. No more bongos 03:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm just extraordinarily disappointed in DG. I thought he knew better than to pull stupid shit like that, but I guess I was misguided. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren ^(talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: To Your Comment on WP:DR

"shameless canvassing"...um, ouch. If asking for people to voice their opinion is wrong, hey, than I don't want to be right. What, I am supposed to just stand idly by while someone decides to do an end-round two AFDs that first cleared the stations from deletion? I am supposed to stand idly by while that same person, an admin, essentially throws a fit and puts them back up for again no more than 5 hours after the first AFD was closed? I am supposed to stand idly by while that same admin tries to change the notability standard that would open a Pandora's Box which would put any and all radio and TV station articles, any and all radio and TV network articles, and effectively make WP:WPRS and WP:TVS and the work by the members of those groups irrelavant? If I am supposed to do that...then, well, ain't gonna happen.

Many people put MANY long, tireless hours into building both WP:WPRS and WP:TVS into what they are. Many people put MANY more long, tireless hours into building the TV stations articles and keeping them up-to-date and fighting off continued vandals like BenH, Mmbabies, and Dingbat2007 to have their work spit on and flushed down the drain because a rouge admin like Mr.Z-man finds them "non-notable".

By the same token, some of those same people put even MORE long, tireless hours into building, updating, adding, creating articles, tables, templates and more for WP:WPRS like JPG-GR. He put in more hours than I can think off giving the Lists of Radio Stations in Pick A State a uniform look. Rtphokie created articles that just weren't there, hundreds of times over. Filling in HUGE holes in several states. Dravecky makes sure that all those articles have FCC, Radio-Locator, and Arbitron links, correct information and such. Hell, we even have an IP editor who is continuously adding Arbitron links (which are necessary), tower heights (HAAT), correct wattage, correcting categories, templates and such.

If I was supposed to stand idly by and not let those people know that an admin, a self-proclaimed rouge admin at that, was trying to have the rules changed so he could delete that work because he didn't think it was notable, then I am guilty as charged.

I am guilty as charged and I should be sent to my corner of the internet for speaking up against a person who doesn't understand the precedent he will set if the notability standard is his crying, whining, almost begging for is allowed.

Because, it would effectively put all radio and television station articles, any and all radio and television network articles and really any article having to do with media at risk for deletion. Then that precedent would be carried over to other WikiProjects. It would be a "if they can do it, so can we" mentality. "Small rodent no one has ever heard of"? Delete it, not notable. "Bug no one has seen in 20 minutes"? Delete it, not notable. "A kind of cow only native to southwestern Lancaster County, PA that only gives milk when the light of the moon is just right and the Tonight Show is on"? Delete it, not notable. Then it will be big things. "Do we need 160 articles having to do with New York City"? Nope, delete them, not notable.

It would finally come down to, "do we really need a 'free encyclopedia' when we can get the same info by doing a Google search"? Nope! Delete it, not notable. There goes Wikipedia.

So, if by telling 10 (or was it 11?) people about something is "shameless", then I am a "shameless" bastard and if you consider it "shameless canvassing", then I am guilty as charged. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, yes, it was shameless canvassing. I'm not attempting to assail your character, I simply mean that you intended to do it and have no remorse about it (as is clear from this and other responses). That's perfectly within your right (although canvassing isn't allowed). I am incredibly sympathetic to the argument that those with an interest in an article be notified; I think that, on the surface, that only seems fair. The problem comes in when they are the only people notified, and thus, it is impossible to determine the community's consensus; anyone unrelated to the article and simply reviewing it independently and determining that it does not meet our criteria would be drowned out by those with an interest in the article. Since there is no way to systematically notify independent community members other than listing it at AFD, then the first cannot happen. The false dichotomy/slippery slope argument you and others have cited regarding deleting the article is baseless, in my view. Wikipedia's policy on notability is clear — significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Any station that meets that standard (it's not a very difficult one to fill — it's loosely interpreted as two articles from any newspaper, magazine, book, ANYTHING) will stick around. FCC licensing has no bearing on our policy and is inherently US-centric. And your crusade against Mr. Z-man (in various user talk messages, and here) is rather unbecoming. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV Assistance

I see. Thanks & Regards, Rudget.talk 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across as overly hostile. It wasn't really directed at you, I was slightly frustrated at the claims of collusion against me by Firsfron. I do firmly believe that your closure was contrary to policy, though, and should have been left open (or at least let an admin catch the heat ;)). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Thanks once again for the advice. Rudget.talk 16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Nothing florid, nothing fancy. Just thanks: for the questions, and for the support. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 04:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee High School article

I saw that the article for the Robert E. Lee High School was removed by you. some of the information was taken from the Wikipedia article on Robert E Lee and the rest from Lee high School's website which I cited and added the link at the end. The information seems to me very basic that I didn't think will be copy right violations. I'm new and don't know everything, but I tried to change the article to look different and it was still removed for a second time. I will appreciate if you can explain to me the procedure I need to take. Persiancowboy 07:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

In fact, the conclusion in every comment that was supported by a large majority was that Ryulong is a good administrator who needs to exercise caution (some asserted extreme caution) when using the block button. That is precisely what has not happened; Ryulong has failed to recognize that.

I quoted your comment above. I think you're 100% right in this regard. We can't turn a blind eye on admins who think just because they have access, they can block who they please without any interaction with the user or anyone else who might know better. Even if this request fails, I feel good someone is concerned. ZordZapper (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

re Glen Phillips and Glen Phillips (writer)

Hi there, friendly admin. Thanks for your help at the Glen Phillips page earlier today. I just thought I would let you know that I left a note to the new editor (who had questioned me at my own Talk page) at User talk:Glenaphillips, in case there was anything else you thought we should mention to him. Cheers, --Paul Erik (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you've pretty much got it covered. I watchlisted the user's talk page in case there is a response and you need some backup. (Though feel free to ping me here if I miss it.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)