User talk:Bobak

Welcome to my talk page!

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

Something regarding my Photos? You're welcome to look/comment at my Photo Gallery's talk page.

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, James Blake Miller, was selected for DYK!

On November 18, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Blake Miller, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Minneapolis meetup. You are standing at left, I am seated, almost invisible, with dark hair.

Hello, Bobak. I recall meeting you face to face at the Wikipedia meetup in Minneapolis recently. About 1.5 months ago I posted a note to WikiProject Minnesota asking for help with an article. I believe you told me in person that your degree is from the University of Minnesota. Your user page says "(B.A., USC ; J.D., University of Minnesota; Esq.; Admin)". Can you tell me please if you can read the text at "Economics help needed for Leonid Hurwicz on main page" (full URL)? I was hoping for a reply from anyone who attended that school and who is a member of of the project, but have not heard back from you and it has been quite some time. -Susanlesch 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I left a note and spent quite a long time on archiving it too. I noticed your edit to George Lucas and see you edited that article before I did so this whatever it was that again left me out of your loop was surely all a coincidence. Good luck with your football game. 1,539 pages on my watch list and counting. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Further, is there some reason you could not have helped me on the talk page of Star Tribune where you added one of your photos? -Susanlesch (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Well, nice of you to reply. I never did read what you said because it was so far away from my situation at the time. -Susanlesch (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Excuse me but this feedback loop is so out of whack I am really not going to be able to cooperate with future projects you may have in mind until the balance of input and output here is restored. Sorry. No offense intended but this is not cool (a whole series of responses from me, and you reverted vandalism to place my username in your edit comment--surely not intentionally but I have to watch out for this as I have not seen much in the way of a response). Are you still a member of WikiProject Minnesota, Bobak? -Susanlesch (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Susan, I answered all of the above points here (along with responding to the point on your talk page you noted above). I assumed your response meant you were going to respond again and I've waited. I apologize if I've created confusion. --Bobak (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I expect this will continue. I told you a number of things at the meetup, based on my nearly twenty years experience in computing, and approximately seventeen years experience online. I see no evidence that you recognize that. But that is perfectly your right. Take care. Even though in the old days I would have called that a rip off, as I near death it is more like R.I.P. and give credit where credit is due. To Creative Commons, Science Commons, GNU, Sourceforge, anyone. But today most people take these things for granted. They are lurkers--the majority who cannot participate online for whatever reason. Some are extroverts. They are, from what I am told, the majority. But they cannot win. From a concert poster circa 1986 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a distant paraphrase: "People want to be entertained." Yes, I personally graded your article for some bartending WikiProject and did not receive a thank you. You're welcome, because that edit is in my edit history. Nice how that works. Thanks to a few people who I have never met. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Susan, I've always appreciated all the work you've put into the Project. I think all of us in the WikiProject do. From meeting you at the meet-up, you come across as a very kind and genuine person. I guess a negative aspect of the so-called web 2.0 is that contributers end up more anonymous than they used to. With that said, I've come to the Wikipedia Project with a different perspective from my previous online experience: as someone who's admined a rather (how to put this delicately, "lively") video game forum for the past 7+ years with a different set of online social norms. On Wikipedia I generally don't interact as much, not because I don't appreciate the work of others (or yourself), rather its because I tend to narrowly focus on whatever I've logged in for and I don't assume/realize that I'm causing offense by not mentioning what other dedicated editors have accomplished. Please don't think I haven't appreciated the massive amount of work you've done for the Minnesota articles --you're one of the best contributers on this encyclopedia. --Bobak (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. "This is the air where everybody creates" was recorded only about 28 years ago. That is an Amazon.com link to an album owned by the Patti Smith Group and Arista Records. That's fine. Maybe some other year. Toledo, heh. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobak, by the way. I do not see any response to my question, are you a member of WikiProject Minnesota? If so or if not, you missed the Steele family singers last night at the Fitzgerald Theater in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Good luck getting tickets to The Roches tonight. God bless them. Each and every one. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a member --I was just saying that I've been a bit busy with the CFB wikiproject for the past few months and that's why I haven't been participating as much recently. I'm not much of a concert-goer, I usually try restaurants and see movies (though not as many movies as I used to, regrettably). --Bobak (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dodi Al-Fayed

Nice pics. Have you thought about incorporating those photos into the Harrods article? Something could be written there about the memorials in Harrods to Diana and Dodi too. Sue Wallace (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, look forward to seeing them. ;) Sue Wallace (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

With regards to your November edits to Mitch, could you tell me which agent reviewed the ticket for you? Here or or privately as you prefer please. Thanks, Mercury 14:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates

How do I access the standard templates? 71.3.210.131 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! 71.3.210.131 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Error

I was reverting a bunch of vandalism. Didn't see that there, sorry. Weirdy (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Weirdy (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about you

Just thought I'd make you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#unfair_block_.3F which is a discussion of a recent block of yours. Metros (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Strayer Education

A tag has been placed on Strayer Education requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix_talk 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DB was a bad call --especially since it was done during the vacation period and (luckily) I got back after 1 week away from the internet to restore this page. If you really have an issue, go AfD. --Bobak (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Doctorate

Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Wikipedia. It has been mainly developed for Wikipedia administrators however if you have done lots to keep Wikipedia on "the straight and narrow", including being members of different groups which help Wikipedia i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very grateful if you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Bibo

Hello Bobak. I suspect that the picture of Solomon Bibo you uploaded is actually a picture of his brother Simon. If you go to the following link that is cited as a reference in the article you wrote, scroll over the picture, and right-click for properties, you'll see the picture described as "Portrait of Simon Bibo - Courtesy" (You can of course also see it by looking at the source page). If I'm not mistaken, this is the very same picture you claim is Solomon Bibo. Incidentally, I had written an article about Bibo on the Hebrew Wikipedia at around the same time as you wrote your article here. We pretty much cover the same ground (not surprisingly, since even without knowing Hebrew, you'll be able to see at the bottom of the Hebrew article that we relied on the same sources), although the two articles differ somewhat in what they emphasize. Thanks, Suzanne Saadon (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobak - got your message on my user talk page. Glad to see everything was set straight. I too would be curious to see a clear picture of Solomon. What's interesting about the picture you found is that Pablo Sanchez and Solomon Bibo are both standing there. Given the two each accused the other of being a liar, they must not have liked each other much. Suzanne Saadon (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Briarcliffe College

You say, "But it's a school, and thus doesn't qualify for a speedy." To me, these are companies first. The product they sell is education; but they are for-profit corporations (indeed, the one's I've tagged lately are all affiliated with Career Education Corporation). That makes them elible for G11 deletion, to my way of thinking. That said: perhaps stubbification was the way to go. But watch out for a couple of SPAs, Lee26 and JLG1010, who are spamming up all the CEC-affiliated articles on a regular basis (and sometimes working as IPs too). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your advice...

Please take a look at the comment by User:AkatDemonSuki on my user page -- I would appreciate your advice as to how I report it. Thanks! --ukexpat (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Bibo

On 18 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Solomon Bibo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article; thanks for creating it. Rosiestephenson (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. β^_command 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a moment and review (we're going to set aside the fact that it's a bot, not a person). I sincerely believe your bot is one of the worst things to happen to Wikipedia, and I make that point with a good faith argument:

• The bot doesn't actually do anything to fix problems, it just deletes/eliminates things that could've been fixed quickly.
• To me and my philosophy about this Project (inclusionism, eventualism, anti-copyright paranoia), that makes it a lazy answer.
• Lazy answers are counterproductive.
• Because this is a bot, it greatly magnifies the damage I believe it does to the Project.
• So, for those reasons, I absolutely stand behind my statement that "BetacommandBot is the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia in quite some time".

You've basically accused me of the Wikipedia equivalent of libel; but, for the above reasons, what I have stated is in good faith and, in my opinion, truthful. Do you chose to disagree? That's fine. However, don't let your own emotions escalate to threatening or bullying me like you did here. Thank you. --Bobak (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually neither the bot nor Betacommand delete images. All the bot does is tag the images, related article discussion pages and image uploader talk pages stating what the problem with the image license. So it absolutely does the right thing to "fix" the images ... it marks the image, notifies the uploader and even posts to article talk pages. Notifying the involved editors about the problem seems to be exactly the right solution. Vassyana (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The threat to delete them within a week is unfair, especially for items that already have a FU rationale but just don't happen to have the template. This is deletionism taken to an extreme. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Vassyana, but I already understand its process and it doesn't change my opinion. I've seen article were logos and other similar images have vanished because no one sees what the bot writes. There's a false assumption that most well-meaning Wikipedians are online as regularly as the top 10% of editors that do a lot of work (which is what Baseball Bugs wrote as I was writing this into an edit conflict :-p ). They're not, and this bot directly contributes to a lot of unnecessary deletions that can otherwise be fixed with a little bit of human work. I realize that there are a lot of people who think this manner of operating is a great idea (I believe copyright paranoia is a serious problem), so I am not going out of my way to have the bot curtailed. However, every time I have to clean up after it, I don't hesitate to voice my opinion. The tag was out of line. --Bobak (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your problem is with the fair use and deletion policies, not with the bot. The policies set the seven day time period and numerous individual admins carry out the task of reviewing images tagged for longer than seven days. The bot does nothing more or less than tagging. The Foundation and community have set the policy. Many sysops are involved in reviewing the tags and carrying out the policy. You are blaming the messenger. Vassyana (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The other editor complains about copyright paranoia. I've heard from some that it's not about copyrights, it's about "free content". In short, the deletionists can't even agree on why they want to delete stuff, i.e on what the "policy" actually is. And you're right, the bot is only a symptom, it's the deletionists that are the source of the problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I disagree. My assertion that the bot is the worst (after review, I would consider "one of the worst") thing to happen to the Project isn't changed by who came up with the policy. The bot itself is causing problems with tags and harming articles; it is doing more "well-intended" harm than the policy itself. If its a disagreement of policy, then BetacommandBot is the manifestation that can and should receive negative opinion. Dismissing my position as "blaming the messenger" isn't accurate: If a cop tried to enforce a questionable infraction (since it would easily be cleared up), I would blame the cop. If a robot did the same thing, then I would likely do the same (since this analogy begs the comparison: the bot is less Robocop, more ED-209). I am not swayed, and I look forward to the day when I don't have to fix articles in this bot's wake. --Bobak (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To follow your analogy, it wouldn't be a questionable infraction. It would be a ticket written perfectly within the confines of the law and courts. You want to change the law and change the mind of the judges, because railing against the police officer isn't going to change the system that officer serves. The only likely results are a troublesome/negative reputation and potentially more charges. Betacommandbot is doing nothing wrong. It is simply implementing policy. If you think that policy is wrong, raise it at the appropriate policy talk pages. If you disagree with a deletion, discuss it with the administrator that deleted the image. Railing against policy-appropriate tagging and notification that is backed by community-formulated rules and the working administrators is senseless and will not change anything. Vassyana (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The inability of BetacommandBot to fix things is its cardinal flaw, it is not able to rationalize or help; it is one of the worst things to happen to the Project. And, by the way, I am also a "working administrator" so please do not talk down to me; as you well know admins are nothing more than members with a mop and bucket. In fact, that comment pretty much ends any interest I have in listening to you. Good day. --Bobak (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "don't shoot the messenger" argument posed by that other user is bogus. The user in question is not a slave, he is a voluntary participant in the process. Thus, if there is a problem with the process, his activities are part of the problem, and he is a willing participant in perpetuating the problem. Therefore, he has a responsibility to justify his actions (which, I concede, he did for the question I raised) rather than telling the user to go read a book. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

follow-up thought

Another major problem with how BetacommandBot is operating is that it magnifies the aftermath of what, in my opinion, was a bad decision in changing image tags. Many of the older university logos that are being deleted by this bot were tagged under the old {{Univ-logo}} image tag that was created specifically for university logos; a tag that was suddenly removed after some group decided it wasn't needed (This project can be the squeaky wheels getting the grease and not what is ultimately the best decision for the encyclopedia). Once the handful of (never pre-qualified) individuals decided to remove that tag, hundreds (if not thousands) of images had their tags changed to something that set them up a bot like BetacommandBot to come through and mow down. Thus the design of BetacommandBot was never refined to help rectify that sort of problem and here we are watching large numbers of (at the time) properly uploaded images being deleted by the actions of editors who aren't willing to help fix the messes they cause and the bots that magnify those mistakes 10-fold. --Bobak (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobak, thanks for the protection help on the David Gest article.

I'm trying to combat some anonymous vandals. This is the 2nd time we've had to put the page on semi-protect. Can we get something more permanent?

Owen Schmitt...

See what I just wrote under your subject of "Facemask Destroyer". Thanks. --Crash Underride 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to U of M Law

Hey, just thought I would let you know that I reverted your reversion to University of Minnesota Law School since you reverted over 5 non-vandalism edits with no comment. If you have a valid reason or suggestions for improvment, discussion page commentary would be helpful. Otherwise, nice job overall. -Finalnight (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and explained. Sorry. --Bobak (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Law number

Must have miscopied the number. The eyes go cross-eyed while looking at rankings. Thanks for catching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vantelimus (talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

Check back with me and I'll let you know when your opinion matters to me... better yet, don't. And, by the way, eleven is more of a consensus than one is "people". →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Let's not get too heated; at the end of the day I don't think any less of a person because I get into an edit dispute. --Bobak (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summaries came off as snarky. Perhaps you did not intend them that way? You're pretty close to 3RR as it is. Frankly, it's not worth it to me. Most of Wikipedia is good. But, in some areas, editors—from anons to admins—apparently do what is right in their own eyes and the community can just sod off if they don't like it. So, this is where we part ways. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being too snarky. I just with more people would move things that can be moved rather then simply cutting down. I shouldn't take out that frustration on any individual and I see it bled through here. --Bobak (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I've reverted the article to the way it was before my first edit. I'm doing the same to the other articles from which I removed lyrics. There are battles worth fighting and this just is not one of them. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Minnesota

Portal:Minnesota is at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates if you can find a minute to vote. From memory, you are both an administrator (someone with knowledge of Wikipedia), and a member of WikiProject Minnesota (someone on the list of participants). The most recent portal promotions had only a few more votes than Minnesota has now. Thank you kindly. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add a date...

To this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SlaveSale.jpg No idea from the context when it was taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afabbro (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

It was nice to meet you. Would you kindly delete my User and Talk pages? (All of them, everything in those directories.) The instructions say "contact an administrator" which I know for a fact you are. I don't think there is any way to close an account? How do you write a password for all time? Much obliged in advance and best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In case this helps I asked again at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Helping_going_away. Thanks. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I hestitated for a bit, but I know this is your right. Additional support for your decision is found here (which cross references the Right to Vanish). Since your talk page will also be deleted, I want to say that I hope we see you here again, with whatever username you choose. If you want your old username back, you should be able to re-log into it and restart the pages, so long as you remember that info. If you have a change of heart, or any other issues, please feel free to contact me. You've been a good member, and I feel some sadness in fulfilling this request. Please take care. --Bobak (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Bobak. Thanks. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remember: if you want all these pages back, they can be restored. Your massive talk archive will take a bit to delete in its entirety. --Bobak (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Main page featured article

Please read WP:NOPRO and remove your semi-protection of Sea otter. Today's vandalism is no greater than any other day. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Using that page, here's my rationale: WP:NOPRO states that we should "only semi-protect the page as a response to extreme levels of vandalism"; noting "for some thoughts on what level of vandalism qualifies for semi-protection, and other considerations, see Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection." Thus based on Criteria for semi-protection, I believe my decision hits all criteria (each point stated with my comments in parenthesis):

• "All or almost all of the vandalism is coming from unregistered users." (in this case from unregistered and new, vandalism-only accounts)
• "Unregistered editors should be making very few contributions to the article compared to the amount of vandalism coming from unregistered editors. The negative effects of semi-protection on discouraging positive contributions should be more of a concern than the positive effect of decreasing vandalism." (in this case the vast majority of edits by anons are vandalism, unlike normal operation where its been on the plus side)
• "There are regularly many new vandals, therefore it would be a huge unending task to notify and warn all the vandals individually." (I believe this is the case here)
• "According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies#Conclusions from study 1, on average 5% of edits to a page are vandalism. So, 5% is the level of vandalism to be expected, and semi-protection should not be applied in this case. More than usual levels of vandalism occur when anything over 5% of edits constitute vandalism. If each vandal edit was followed by a revert, without any further edits to the page, then 50% of edits would be vandalism. More than 50% is rare, but may occur when multiple vandalism edits are reverted by a single edit. The higher the percentage of vandal edits the greater the need for protection." (When not semi-protected, the level of vandalism has been significantly over 5%)
• "Articles that appeal to children require greater protection from offensive vandals compared to an article which deals with adult themes." (Children love otters and its hard to not see them clicking on that photo on the mainpage)

So for the above criteria, I think the semi can hold for the next hour and a half until its set to end along with the pages feature on the mainpage. --Bobak (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your criteria is flawed, as Criteria for semi-protection is not written with the main page featured article in mind. If you'd like examples of when it is appropriate, read NOPRO, and you'll see your criteria above does not fit the way the MPFA is treated. Please remove your protection; it is inappropriate. - auburnpilot talk 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully don't believe my reasoning is flawed as I followed the statement of WP:NOPRO that "Administrators only semi-protect the page as a response to extreme levels of vandalism" which in turn notes that "For some thoughts on what level of vandalism qualifies for semi-protection, and other considerations, see Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection"; and thus by reviewing and comparing the criteria in Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection the decision follows the guidance. The additional information on the WP:NOPRO page states that semi-protection can be introduced for a limited amount of time and the next 75 minutes certainly qualifies as a "limited amount of time". I think after this I'll avoid the featured main page FA because interpretations of our own policy are clearly not welcome unless they're a particular way. --Bobak (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you are taking advantage of the limited time the article has left on the main page, in order to justify your protection. You protected the article at 17:56, 24 March 2008 and set it to expire when the article leaves the main page. That is 6 hours and not a "limited amount of time"; it is a large percentage of the day. Please use protection more carefully in the future. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, to borrow a definition from the US Supreme Court, a "limited time" is basically "not perpetual", but I understand your concern, will release the article for the final hour, and will simply avoid the main page in the future lest I be chased off the Project. I frankly don't understand your passion on this point, I guess I went on your turf. I wonder how many times the page will be vandalized in the next hour, and what the ratio will be. --Bobak (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, I do not appreciate your summary for unprotection; it was uncalled for and this is not my "turf". My "passion on this point" is that semi-protection is, in effect, a range block on every single IP address in existence. If vandalism is such that protection is warranted, I will not object. But to protect it for over 6 hours when vandalism was at quite normal levels, I do object. - auburnpilot talk 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand behind my decisions and opinions. Thank you. --Bobak (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Thank you both for helping to keep the article clean. Next time, maybe try asking for opinions at WP:AN/I? You both made valid interpretations of policy, so it's really a matter of deciding how to weight the various benefits and drawbacks. It's unfortunate that your dispute became a bit personal and I hope it is over and forgotten (or that it will be soon). Best, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't raid his talk page with accusations; and his userpage (under "favorite comments") demonstrates that he actually prides himself on angering other users. Besides, I was right: after being unprotected for less than an hour of featured status, the page was hit left and right, meeting the criteria for semi-protect yet again. I think some people just want to set-up a sting operation. Sea otter remains on my watchlist, as it was before. --Bobak (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well he seems to pride himself on being insulted by misogynist losers, but I doubt he enjoys conflict with fellow wiki admins. The WP:NOPRO page is partly to blame for this conflict, in that it simply refers to the Rough Guide for a definition of "extreme" vandalism. The tradition is to accept way, way higher levels of vandalism on a TFA than on any other article. It's just par for the course, described witfully here: User:Giano/A_fool's_guide_to_writing_a_featured_article#Your_day_on_the_main_page Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano's opinion essay didn't really do much with the subject. It appears to be a questionable policy that's being interpreted poorly. A shame. --Bobak (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

USC's student politics

The comment that you seek to have included in the article about USC and the "notoriously corrupt" nature of then student politics is not supported by the source you cite. First, the comment that serves as the source is about a single individual, not the student politics, in general, so a general comment is inappropriate. Secondly, the cited source does not make the assertion that the acts were corrupt, so applying that nomer to the statement represents opinion. I have reverted the edits until they can be properly cited or sourced. Disagree? Let's discuss. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)