User talk:72.75.70.147

My reasons for not registering are not a topic for conversation ...

I will simply let my edits speak for themselves ... besides, registering with a username, such as The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs), will not make me any less anonymous ... so please, just cut a "recovering wikiholic" some slack, and MOVE ON.

And, yes, until the power failure a just a few minutes ago, my Verizon DSL IP address (and thus my username) was 72.75.100.232 (talk · contribs).

Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Memorable quotes
• User talk:68.239.79.82/filmographies Discussion page boilerplate for pruning filmographies

---

|} My current sandbox

Good articles

I'll check the articles out in the next day or so and if they qualify, I'll nominate them. Best, --Alabamaboy 11:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of those articles are borderline good articles, so I'd like to see them improved before I nominate them. 366th Infantry Regiment (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs inline citations and more info in the combat/WWII section. John R. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs more info about his personal life. Best,--Alabamaboy 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thnx fer the feedback ... finding anything about Fox will be difficult ... he graduated from college with an ROTC commission, immediately went on active duty, and was killed three weeks after his 27th birthday ... he never had much of a chance to do anything except get married and father a child before he went overseas ... given the circumstances, might they cut him some slack in that regard? After all, his sole claim to WP:N is the circumstances of his death and the fact that his self-sacrifice was ignored for over 50 years due to institutional racism by the US military ... at least it's not just another article where over half of the text is a copy&paste from the subject's Medal of Honor citation.

As for the 366th article, I get your point that is should be as well cited as the Fox article ... I can probably find some places to turn a few of the current References into citations; I have two of them at my elbow even as we speak, and have been considering coming out of "retirement" briefly to create articles about them, so I'll scan them both (it's been years since I read them) for "juicy nuggets" in each that can be used in two different articles, just reworded for a slightly different spin ... I know that there is plenty of info for fleshing the combat/WWII section in the book by Hargrove, which BTW is where I first learned the circumstances surrounding my father's second Bronze Star Medal and his third Purple Heart.

I'll ping you again when they're ready for another review. —72.75.70.147 10:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlsheaton Technology College

There's COI to a considerable at almost all school articles. So I look at the results. In this case the results are pretty awful--one of the the worst I've seen. A web site is copyright whether or not it says so, unless it specifically has a notice saying its Public Domain. There is now no requirement in either the US or UK for a notice copyright notice--just that if you have one you can collect higher damages. It is possible that the paragraphs from the inspectors report may not be copyright as public documents, but I'm not sure; I've left them for the moment. What I do about isolated copyvio sections is remove them. In this case, I'd remove them anyway as absurd. Now take a look at what's left. With the comments I think it's N, if the comments were properly sourced, without them its dubious, but the CAD/CAM facility is a little unusual at this level. If you want an interesting discussion about the copyright status,send to AfD. I have put a note on the talk page that should discourage the editor from reverting my deletions.

Thanks for showing me this one. I've done this according to my style; some would have AfD'd, some would have speedied. DGG 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thnx fer doing something about it ... as I'm sure you're well aware, my Evil Twin is more of a Deletionist than me, but when I found List of schools in Yorkshire and the Humber while reviewing "What links here," I realized that

1. the author had not added the school to the list (it was already there waiting for an article), and
2. WP:A and WP:N are generally not an issue for schools, which is why there's no longer a WP:SCHOOL (on the off-chance that there might be, I tried it, and found the deprecated guideline)

Anywho, the article that I found just DID NOT BELONG in the state that it was in, and I had neither the experience nor the inclination to fix it, so I just pinged a couple of Administrators with whom I'd had recent contact, confident in the knowledge that Some Other Editor would deal with it, and I could just MOVE ON. :-)

And belated congratulations! I recall being premature with them when a prior IP changed a month ago. —72.75.70.147 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Account

I abandoned the account since I couldn't access it because I couldn't remember the password. Pepso2 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it when that happens? Thnx fer initializing my User page, BTW … now I can move my intro greeting there. :-) —72.75.70.147 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum

Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk · contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

• Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.

• Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

V&A

You're doing a great job, and have everything under control where it should be. I'm afraid my time right now is very limited, so I won't be participating much. If you need any admin backup (which I don't think you do), let me know. Tyrenius 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments on protocols and templates for proposed and speedy deletions

I have revised my proposed and speedy deletion warning protocols, and I am requesting comments from the following administrators, with whom I have had contact in the past on the topic of moderating the proposed deletion and speedy deletion processes:

• DESiegel (talk · contribs)
• DGG (talk · contribs)
• Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)

Introduction: I believe that sometimes the deletion of newly created articles can occur Too Quickly, often with negative consequences.

The current process is to tag an article for deletion, and then to notify the author with a very impersonal {{nn-warn}} template as a (optional) courtesy. Often, an author will return after a few days (or in just a few hours) only to find that their article has been deleted with either (a) no warning or explanation, or else (b) a boilerplate message containing instructions that it is too late to follow, from an editor lacking the authority to either delete or restore it. Either of these situations can be very frustrating and intimidating, especially to nuggets. ("Chew 'em up, yum!")

Proposed solution: I believe that New pages patrol, Recent changes patrol, and Counter-Vandalism Unit activities should adopt the following simple protocol:

1. Notify the author of the pending deletion on their User Talk page.
2. Document the reasons for the deletion on the article's Discussion page.
3. Tag the article for deletion with either a {{prod}} or a {{db}}.
4. MOVE ON.

To make the first two steps easier for editors, I have created two boilerplate message templates, {{Warn-editor}} and {{Warn-article}}, that are keyed to the most commonly used CSD (A7) templates and their associated notability guidelines. Note that the first one greets the user by name, and the second one provides links to relevant articles, guidelines, and policies. Both may be targeted for a specific guideline (e.g., "Biographies," "Companies," or "Web content") instead of just being broadly generic.

Field testing: To test their use, I have identified two articles that have been around for a while, but would probably not survive an AfD, or would be deleted upon the expiration of a PROD:

• Ironman Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - test case for Warn-web protocol
• Don Fernando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - test case for Warn-pornbio protocol

The first article (that I discovered while doing cleanups after a vandal) is about a website that is not notable enough for an article of its own; at best it only deserves a brief mention in the existing article for its parent organization.

The second article (that came to my notice on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) is about a pornographic actor. It asserts their Notability, but fails to provide any Verifiability for the assertions; I have not objections to it being retained if they are provided. (The bulk of the previous edits to it, including those by the subject, were additions to a Very Long list of their film appearances that I deleted and replaced with links to IMDb and IAFD.)

Because of the infrequency of contributions by the articles' authors, I plan to follow the protocols using a PROD rather than a CSD. I'm requesting that you (a) add the two articles to your watchlists to monitor what happens, and (b) comment on the templates either on their Discussion pages or in this section of my Talk page.

Epilogue: Needless to say, I have undergone an "attitude adjustment" and am much less of a deletionist than I was six weeks ago (notice the placement of "proposed" before "speedy" whenever deletions are mentioned), mostly as the result of two events; the first one was when my account was briefly blocked from editing as a result of my new pages patrol activities, and the second was an epiphany about the lack of any Attribution in newly created articles that is best summed up by this quote:

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

— Gin Rummy, The Boondocks

I realize that what I am proposing is nothing less than a paradigm shift, and (like any change in direction) it will face resistance, but I also think that upon due deliberation, most will agree that it is a Good Thing ... I suppose that the "proper" way to present these modifications of the proposed and speedy deletion processes to the community would be as an Essay (that might evolve into a Guideline accepted by consensus), but there is still much work to be done and experience to be gained before it is ready for general discussion ... OTOH, if there is some reason of which I am unaware that makes this entire enterprise a colossal waste of time, I wish that someone would let me know before I expend any more energy in this direction. :-)

Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

general comments

Before we get to details I want to comment both on the current situation, & strategy. My views are altered a little by, first, my experience of my first month as an admin, second, the decision of a number of excellent active edits to stand for adminship, and the bursts of activity that results, third, the evidence that there is not really total agreement among WPedians amount the stringency of the N & V standards, both in general and in all sorts of special cases.

The way to take the disputed standards into account--the only way we can take them into account for detailed procedure, is to ensure that the disputed cases are not decided by the opinions of whichever editors and admins happen to get to the articles first, go to the community procedure of AfD. What the consensus there ought to be , and how well Afd works--these are other questions.

the burst of activity the last few days has cut down the passage time at Speedy from a matter of 8 or 10 hours to a matter of minutes. This isn't enough time for "hangon" to work. We simmply have to do something rational here.

As an admin, I've seen that many people who put on speedy tags do not pay the least attention either to the criterion or to reading the articles. (a former head of state was given a speedy a few days back, just to illustrate), and I can also now see for the first time what I suspected all along--that some few admins do not use a two-step procedure when the really should. I also see the presence of a great many pages that do not actually need two opinions: I am the brightest junior high school school student in town, and by girl friend is the most beautiful. (Image), This technically is not nonsense, and asserts notability, but it obviously should go, fast, image & article both. But nonetheless the young person should be treated much more gently than our templates are worded, and given some personal advice, And the straightforward : NNNNNNN XX which are surprisingly frequent, and need no personal consideration, because the almost always young person in this case knows perfectly well what he or she is doing.

Strategy. Before reforming the times and the steps and so on, we should get back to work on the templates,both you new ones and existing one , for both speedy and user warnings, and establish a more human tone.

But this discussion and the more general one should take place in WP space, not user space. DGG 20:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thnx fer the quick response, DGG, and the background about what's going on in the Greater Community ... I admit that I'm working in isolation with a kind of tunnel vision, so I wanted to solicit the opinions of a few admins with whom I'd had contact on the subject before tossing it out for consensus ... to do otherwise would be like the poor newbies who post a work-in-progress stub of an article for the NPP zealots to pounce upon ... I mean, isn't this why God created sandboxes? :-)

So I guess I'd like to keep it in user space just a little while longer, until it's at least been sanity checked by "a few" admins, if only to catch the occasional copy&paste errors or misstatements by my evil twin.

BTW, I just stumbled across Peer trainer, a perfect example of something that should probably go to AfD rather than a PROD or CSD, so I'm using it as another test case for the templates and the Warn-web protocol , and I've found a Serious Bug that I have to fix before I can use it again ... the subst: is creating headers that include the #ifeq and such directives, so I'd better RTFM instead of just copying and modifying things that I think I understand just from examples of use. <Sigh!>

I'm pretty sure that the three of you hold divergent opinions on some philosophical points, e.g., more or less of a deletionist/inclusionist, which is a Good Thing for my purpose, given I wish to keep the initial reviewer pool as small as possible ... I get the feeling that you are also frustrated that some editors and admins are not taking enough time on the "borderline" articles ... I don't expect to get much use out of the "not for things made up in school" protocol and template, but I included it for completeness, and as a "no-brainer" that I could use for testing with broader exposure than the "Academics," for example ... yeah, in the spirit of IAR, there are some new pages that don't need the warnings, and admins should zap 'em "on sight" without a Second Opinion ... having mentioned that, I'll add it to the "intro" for the Master Protocol ...

"These protocols are for the borderline cases, not the obvious never-to-be-seen-again, unsupervised, public access IP adolescents ... no need to waste the time on warnings and audit trails with the obvious cases."

WP:BITE does not apply, either ... "Chew 'em up and spit 'em out!" :-)

But I digress ... what I'd like to know, DGG, is how strongly you feel about the "warn&wait" shift in emphasis ... I have come to think of the "flag then tag THEN frag" philosophy as being Very Much in line with "assume good faith" and Hanlon's razor, and we should make a collective effort to perpetuate it as part of the Consensus ... your thoughts, please? —72.75.70.147 22:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

next round

Where to go: What I think you are saying is that we need another classification scheme--and my current model is 3 groups.

1/obviously unsuitable --any admin can delete on sight, and priority for nonadmins to mark & send. reason why non-admins cant delete on sight is they haven't been screened, and we'll get malicious deletion. I see 1 or 2 a day., so there might be about 20/day. This will get about half the current speedies= 2000/day.

2/in urgent need of a fix. Warn, give some specific suggestions, check in a few days. If not improved mark, 2nd person deletes. The actual delete has to be an admin, as above. This will get the other half. This will include the present speedy a11 advertising, which are never obviously hopeless

eliminate prod--the only good use is abandoned and dubious though people do use it in the hope it will go under the radar. -- there is no good reason to use a prod on something that someone is likely to care about. Most go to the new class 2, some to class 3. (half of the present use is abandoned user pages, which can really have a separate speedy procedure since they should not be controversial)

3/AfD, with provision for relatively speedy closure as now if something obvious gets there. 7 days. no repeats for 2 or 3 months.

finally, an easy appeal mechanism. But there is one big type of stuff that does not fit.

• successive usually commercial spam--people can do dozens in an hour or two. Remove+warn+block if continues is the only thing that works here. I have never needed to block, except for this.

and three disputable points that not everyone will agree

A/ copyvio of articles on important subjects--we need a rule that they be stubbified not deleted if at all possible--most can.

B/ stubs. Simply permit a stub on an obvious subject, indefinitely. Project to upgrade, not to remove.

C/ BLP--I think obvious attack page speedies can deal, and anything else can get blanked and sent for regular process.

And two overall problems

I/ Auditing deletions by admins

II/ How to get it to work in sync with progressive warnings.

and an overall problem

• the general problem of how to fit in with warnings--we still have to have a way of blocking the vandals

How to get there. 1. I strongly advise against an explicit overall policy change as step One. It will probably get rejected and set things back half a year. The way to try to change consensus is inch by inch. 2. I continue to recommend small changes that would fit into the present system so that people get used to things. 3. Continuing to refine notices is even easier.

Detail: PeerTrainer will survive AfD, because of the NYT article and the People article, and CBS. It's been improved and is shown to be notable. not a good test case. Definitely needs a number of cuts, to make it less of a how-to-do-it.

Brooke Hogan

It does seem they are using a dynamic IP, so it is very difficult to curtail them (such a long range cannot be blocked without huge collateral damage!), so the best thing would be to semi protect the article, but that would lock even you out. Still, I am doing it, if you wish to make any edits while its protected, just let me know. I will temporarily unprotect it to let you make the edits. --soum ^talk 09:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! … I thought that we could simply block the 256 IP addresses in the the subrange of 61.5.92.xxx, not the 65,536 in 61.5.xxx.xxx, but I guess the available tools just aren't flexible enough. <Sigh!>

Actually, I'm not so concerned about this one article as I am about their future damage to other articles (and the wasted time by myself and others who must then clean up after them), so I thought that a 48 hour block might at least get their attention. —72.75.70.147 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, even if the 256 IPs are blocked, (assuming there are not more than 6 vandals in the range), still 250 more addresses will be victim of collateral damage. A short block of an hour or two may be acceptable, but not 48 hours. Anyways, if you see this range blocking multiple article, could you please report it ASAP, with reference to this discussion. I will have to take that unpleasant step of blocking an entire range to at least get their attention. --soum ^talk 10:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That was the whole point of my bringing it up in the first places ... see the edit histories of

• 61.5.92.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 61.5.92.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 61.5.92.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 61.5.92.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 61.5.92.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 61.5.92.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and you'll see multiple articles that I've reverted for WP:CRYSTAL additions, with Brooke Hogan simply being an overlap because they were restoring what was removed by my previous revert!! And I doubt that 250 other users in some internet cafe or using dial-up modems from Jakarta will be editing English Wikipedia articles so frequently that they will be negatively impacted ... blocking a university library would be a Bad Idea, of course, but that would be a more stable range of address. (BTW, sorry about the cloned post on your talk page ... didn't know how closely you would be monitoring mine ... I'll UNDO it, unless you zap it first. :-) —72.75.70.147 10:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked em for a short time. Hopefully that will catch their attention. And yeah, I have your talk page watchlisted. I watchlist every user I communicate with, at least for as long as the dialogue continues. :) --soum ^talk 10:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thnx! FYI, I've just done reverts on a new IP in that same range, 61.5.92.103, since we began this conversation ... and would you please semi-protect 2007 in music and 2008 in music? (I just noticed the latter was touched by 61.5.92.30 a bit earlier) I was just about to suggest that it seems to be a good place to focus getting their attention (with a "See talk page" intro and appropriate message) if blocking was not a viable alternative.

I've also notified Lincalinca (talk · contribs), who has reverted their contributions to 2008 in music on several occasions, but I'm through with doing reverts and leaving warnings for things this anon. IP did more than 24 hours ago, because that's work better suited to a bot than wetware like me ... I have other projects (like the V&A Museum newbie project and my drafts for proposed/speedy deletion warnings) to waste any more time with this one right now, so if you'll excuse me, I think that I can now leave it in your more than capable hands and MOVE ON. :-) —72.75.70.147 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just posted a bunch more of the sockpuppets of that same IP in WP:AIV, Soum, would you mind having alook over them? They're doing 2008 in music (with some junk about Brooke Hogan). --linca^linca 11:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that spans the entire 61.xxx.xxx.xxx range - more than a million addresses. --soum ^talk 11:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, PT Telekom Indonesia uses a lot of fragmented ranges, like 61.5.92.0 - 61.5.95.255, 61.94.192.0 - 61.94.193.255, among others. We need to find out the entire set of ranges before we can even think of monitoring changes. I have already blocked the first range, and am doing the other now. But it will be a short block (2-3 hours max). And the service provider has to be notified. --soum ^talk 11:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From a few key clues in the edits, I suspect more than one adolescents in the Jakarta metro area ... one is using 61.5.92.xxx and the other(s) using 61.94.xxx.xxx ... they're probably not in the same physical location, but are probably classmates who keep in touch through IM or text-messaging, but with the time-stamps we have, Telkom Indonesia should be able to narrow their focus. —72.75.70.147 12:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So surreal...

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Haven't seen you around much till now, but looking at your contributions page, you more than deserve this. Keep it up. lincalinca

Thnx, but I only did what any Recent changes patroller should have done ... BTW, I'm purposely anonymous in part because I don't really care about things like barnstars and edit count awards (codependent enabler, remember?) ... this IP vandal from Jakarta was just a non-welcome distraction for a few hours, so I'd rather just forget about it and MOVE ON ... besides, the next time we get a severe thunderstorm in my area, or a squirrel chews on the phone line down the block, I'll get a new IP account, and this kind of recognition will evaporate. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 11:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware (though not specifically about your reasons for wanting to be anonymous, but honestly, I don't care), but your work here is useful and appreciated. Just thought I'd let you know. --linca^linca 12:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry ... my evil twin doesn't respond well to praise ... not quite sure just when he took control of the keyboard, but that kind of bulldog tenacity is one of the reasons why I tolerate him ... on a "better" day, I'd have just done a revert or two, maybe left a warning, and then returned to working on VAwebteam/To do list, which was my scheduled activity until I noticed the edit to Vanessa L. Williams and wasted six hours sitting at here wearing a "Cloak of Righteous Indignation" before posting the final hand-off to Soumyasch (talk · contribs) above.

Now that I've "consumed mass quantities" of caffeine & nicotine, and spent the better part of an hour cleaning the top of the stove (cooked liver & onions two nights in a row, but the last time I cleaned the area around the burners was around Xmas, so I decided to put the ifrit to Good Use before stuffing it back in its bottle), I think I'll crash for a few hours, and then get back to evaluating the 40+ links that the nugget from the Victoria and Albert Museum added only to have them reverted when they were dragged through a Conflict of interest/Noticeboard review last month ... now that's an on-going endeavor in which I take a lot of pride, BTW, but only because it was an "outside the box" solution to a dilemma that should yield long term benefits for Wikipedia, even though only a half-dozen contributors will probably ever be aware of it. —72.75.70.147 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There must be another five who'll notice it, because I had noticed it. I'm observant of a lot more than I contribute to, but much of what's out there I either can't be bothered fixing or can't be bothered looking for things to fix. Generally my intent is to expand, but am aware of the need to contract and moderate. I play well with others, so to speak. --linca^linca 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 in music

Done, page protected for five days. Let me know if you want it unprotected early. Btw you really should create an account, otherwise a semi-protection like this may prevent a nice editor like you from editing. The only trouble of registering, as usual, is that you must think of a username :) Have a wonderful day, see you. Peacent 08:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have temporarily blocked 61.5.92.xxx and 61.94.19x.xxx temporarily. I have contacted the ISP, but till they act, I am thinking of a cascading semi protection on both articles (2007/8 in music), that would sprotect all the articles linked from them, as the anons are vandalizing not just those two articles but individual artist articles as well. --soum ^talk 08:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)