User talk:Bobak/January 2008 - May 2008

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)

Bobak, again thank you for your excellent and capable help. I talked this over and thought through the past few months and have decided to use my account. Is there any policy requirement that all these deletions be reinstated in some formal way? Hope not. If it is all right as far as you know, I expect to just go on editing in some capacity from here. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, let's undelete them if policy says okay to. The policy for leaving was hazy so I doubt there is a rule about it but I might have missed it. As you say it's a lot of work how about I ask Grandmasterka if he would undelete the pages? -05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, my records show that the pages weren't all deleted, only some of them. I will try asking Grandmasterka if he has time to undelete the 10 that were. Thank you again. -07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All set. Hope you will ping if I can ever return the favor sometime. Thanks. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:05, 30 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)

The quote reads: "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt;[71] the corruption and problems were notable enough that they appeared in the screenplay for All the President's Men.[f]" Now looking at the sources, from the DT article we garner:

• The two parties, Trojans for Responsible Government and Theta Nu Epsilon, used bitter tactics in their constant struggles to gain control of the Student Senate..." --this addresses multiple people and groups.
• "Future Nixon aide Dwight Chapin served as chairman of TRG, the more conservative of the two groups in the early part of the decade. Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." --this addresses only one person, yet, but article doesn't imply he was the only; rather, take this into account with the following passages:
• ""In order to win, the Trojans engaged in a wide variety of undergraduate pranks," reported a 1973 Chicago Sun-Times article profiling Chapin. "They infiltrated their rivals' campaigns. They tore down the posters of rival candidates. They stole their leaflets and produced others that were fake."" --we see the plural used throughout this description, in addition:
• "TRG, however, was formed in response to TNE, which was shrouded in an equally mysterious cloud. This organization, which was comprised of many members of smaller fraternities, "was so secret that most members of the houses represented did not know which of their fraternity brothers were involved," reported a 1974 Daily Trojan article that detailed the USC days of several Watergate participants, including Chapin. "It was a nationwide society, that was so feared and hated that it was banned on most campuses and met secretly, supposedly in dark halls and presided over by a grand klaggon..."". --so again, we are talking about two groups and thus more than one person.

However, it gets better with the screenplay:

• "At USC, you had a word the this--screwing up the opposition you all did it at college and called it ratfucking." --This line isn't about what one person said or did, its about the culture of the student government at the time; in fact, to land in the screenplay such an occurrence must have been a part of the general knowledge of the time.

In addition to involving more than a single individual, the tactics above fit the definition of corrupt. For those reasons I disagree with your assertion that my edits are 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. As such I will revert back to them if they are changed; this is not about whitewashing what is otherwise an exceptional reputation of an era (now historic) student government. --Bobak (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobak, thanks for your response. My thoughts are that all of this is interesting background information, but largely constitutes original research, which as you know, is against Wikipedia’s policies. Nowhere in the article you cite does the quote "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt" appear. Nowhere in the article you cite does the word "corrupt" appear. In fact, nowhere in the article you cite does a word commonly associated with "corrupt" appear, save the following sentence (which refers solely to the actions of one individual): "Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal [emphasis added] plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." So, in order for one to draw the conclusion that the entire organization was (is) corrupt, one must form an opinion, which as you also know, is against the spirit of Wikipedia, if not also against Wikipedia's policies.

The options are, as I see them, to have the article solely reference the acts of the single individual involved (i.e., Chapin) in support of his [emphasis added] corruption, or find another source that supports the corruption of the whole. The words inside the four corners of the source you cite simply do not support that "student politics ... (have) been notoriously corrupt." Was one individual corrupt? I suppose so, if you associate the term "illegal" with "corruption"; safely so IMO. But, not to the whole. It fails a basic test of logic.

Also, the definition of corruption is interesting, but again, each reader of the article is left to determine whether they think the actions amount to corruption. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic journal, not a forum for opinion. Remember, no original research and no unverified claims. The claim that student politics at USC are corrupt is not verified. How could it be? It never appears in the article you cite. And, the bit about the movie is a red herring, plain and simple. Newguy34 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't original research because I'm not making it up myself, I'm citing to a news source and a script written 30 years ago that mention things that are corrupt. --Bobak (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)]

The problem is that the source you cite does not even mention the word "corrupt". You have formed an opinion that, in your mind, the acts of a few amounted to corruption. Quite a different standard when we must demonstrate how our sources are directly related to the assertion, as the WikiGods admonish us to do. Newguy34 (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All I can advise is to re-read the definition of corrupt and corruption and try and see how the activity described in the article and the screenplay matches the definition to a tee. --Bobak (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

University Stub Sorting

Why did you revert my stub sorting? According to List of countries by continent, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey are part of Asia. Only a small part of Turkey (Istanbul), is in Europe. All the University I marked for {{Asia-university-stub}} are located in Asia.

Please revert back the changes.

VietWiki (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I made a mistake on reverting the two Turkish schools + Nakhchivan (I've fixed them); however, as for the others, there was already a discussion on the Azerbaijan schools in the main portion of the country and they are considered a part of Europe on a number of maps (i.e. the country is a member of the Council of Europe); the confusion is the Caucasus region can go either way, and the country clearly identifies closer to Europe (due to Soviet influence) than Asia. The Nakhchivan exclave, however, is more dicey and therefore should be Asian. --Bobak (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One edit?

Yes. Why does that concern you? I typically edit as an IP through the standard campus proxy. As with all such proxies with thousands of users, there is a fair bit of vandalism, and I have no wish for my courteous comment to be dismissed out of hand by association, as some people are all too unfortunately eager to focus on contributor rather than content. Ironically enough, the same thing happened anyway. I have replied to your frankly paranoid accusation on the Administrators INCIDENT Noticeboard, where you made it. Unit56 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take offense, I tried to make that clear on your talk page. I don't know what you're talking about, please see my edit history. --Bobak (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just wow.[1] You could "take my word" for 2004, also known as "assume good faith". Or, you could repeatedly assume bad faith and thereby goad me into looking up the name I used for a while (after registering, and before becoming opposed to usernames). Go ahead and have a look at my history -- no boogeyman here. You may find this article enlightening. "The researchers were most surprised to find that the reliability of [anon ip's] contributions were at least as high as that of the more reputable registered users' contributions." Unit56. Michael Ward (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 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) 01:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

REAL USC?

Under the USC page, I noticed you deleted the facts about the 2 USC's founding information including the University of South Carolina's 1st usage of USC in 1865 and then stated that you have no respect for a 2nd or 3rd tier school that didn't start calling itself USC until after the real USC. Apparently my ABET accredited engineering degree from this 2nd or 3rd tier school can still provide me the ability to accurately calculate the fact that 1865 comes before 1880. I have no animosity toward Southern Cal whatsoever and have great respect for your school overall, but this type of bias attitude really shows the lack of maturity and irresponsibility for someone who edit the Wikipedia often. As far as real or fake USC, it doesn't really matter to me as this is just an abbreviation. However, for all the colonial soldiers that have fought under the Crown from the 1720's, Continental Soldiers that had helped the founding of this nation in the 1770's, Civil War in 1860's, and present day National Guardsmen of South Carolina that bear the abbreviation of SC, I think the name South Carolina has earned and more than deserved the name SC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkwc (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the University of South Carolina website (main history page and Bicentennial website) along with the Wikipedia article on the history:

• "Palmetto State established the South Carolina College on December 19, 1801"
• School is reformed as the University of South Carolina in 1865.
• School is closed in 1877 because it doesn't mesh with the attitude of the state at that time...
• "On October 5, 1880 the institution was reopened as the South Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts"; from a trademark law perspective this abandons the previous name/acronym, though it doesn't prevent it from being brought back as a new name later.
• At some time it cuts off the the end and just becomes South Carolina College in time for its centennial.
• "In 1906, the institution was rechartered for the final time as the University of South Carolina."

Adding to the question of how well people know the school, a recent article (published April 7, 2008) that interviewed South Carolina's own Sports Marketing Director, Jeff Crane, noted that "Research by South Carolina found that [. . .] Southern Cal [''sic''], one of the nation’s preeminent sports programs, is both nationally and even regionally here in the South more closely identified with USC than South Carolina is."[2] Its for these reasons that USC secured the registered trademark. Thank you. --Bobak (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I’m not sure one can trademark an acronym (unless it’s part of a stylized drawing in which both schools have USC trademarked,S/N 75138304 and 75116291 ) when there are MSU’s(Mi,MS) , OSU’s(OR,OH), and UT’s(TX,TN) all over the country. You can definitely argue that one is more well-known than the other, but to say another institution does not have the equal right to use an acronym that matches the name of their institution or to label it “FAKE” is outrageous. The facts you have provided above are all true and do not contradict what I've said about USC 1st being used in 1865 by South Carolina. The original USC of 1865-1877 was the 1st public university to integrate African Americans (students and BOT) which lead to its failure in 1877. Although noble, unfortunately, the integration policy was way ahead of its time and the racist South was not ready for it. I have no argument that USC(CA) is more famous for the usage of USC compared to USC(SC). Southern Cal is indeed a powerhouse in many facets of the athletic and academic arenas. My problem is that you claimed we only used USC after Southern Cal was formed when in reality we used it for a duration of 12 years and before the founding of Southern Cal. My issue is not to have juvenile debates of who’s the REAL USC, but to clarify the facts and that we are USC simply b/c we are The University of SC for the state of South Carolina and has nothing to do with South Central, LA. There are no real or fake USC's, both institutions are simply USC's and I agree CA is more well-known than SC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.103.180 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We both appear to be in general agreement, and I was apparently a bit rude in my earlier edit summary. Let me apologize for that. Universities are a bit unique in the trademarked acronym game in that all parties usually have a very good stake in the name, thus can't be pushed out by an older institution --so, as you noted, they go for trademarking the logo/expression. Now if they were all private companies (selling widgets), you might see some serious fighting (AT&T would attack any phone company calling itself that); and even two private organizations in different fields will attack each other (the World Wildlife Fund victory over what was the World Wrestling Federation is a famous example). Trademark law forces companies to aggressively attack/defend their trademarks in exchange for the legal right to keep them permanently. Universities are a bit more civil, and courts are more understanding. Of course, if either school sees people selling unlicensed gear with "USC" without exact same expression of the symbol, they will go after them (and win) on trademark law. --Bobak (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No apologies needed. Interesting read on the different cultures of the trademark industries between academic institutions and private businesses. You are right, I can’t imagine the acronyms AT&T and IBM allowed to be used by other companies just because they share the same abbreviations. And I can see how that rule is more flexible in the academic arena since most universities have used their acronyms decades before commercial mass media was established. Thanks for the insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkwc (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes

How did this guy ever come across my arcane user page?? Thanks for reverting. Sumerophile (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Check your user page. Congratulations. y'am'can (wtf?) 01:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man, I really appreciate it :-) --Bobak (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your image gallery

I really enjoyed your gallery of images taken in northwestern Wisconsin. I categorized them on Commons. They brought back many memories. It's been years since I've been to most of those places. They are many hours from my home, although I think I've seen almost all of them. You found the best spots in that part of the state, at least the things that I remember the most. Royalbroil 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words --I've seen Wikipedia as a reason to go on a sort of global scavenger hunt of sorts, going around and taking photos of things that haven't got them yet (using a tourbook when useful to find the ideal spots). I'm happy you liked them, it gives me some ammo for when my fiance complains about stopping in every small town to take a photo :-) All the best! --Bobak (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to do the same thing: take pictures of notable places that don't have pictures. I took pictures of many/most places in the eastern half of Wisconsin. I've only been to most parts of western Wisconsin once. Royalbroil 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed your photo gallery also. You beat me in adding details from the LA times article on Westwood Village, Los Angeles, California. Our photos overlap somewhat, I stay around LA for the most part though. Minnaert (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

International Falls

Actually, International Falls is not really the second coldest city in the Lower 48 states by virtue of annual temperature as their are dozens of cities that are colder.

Please refer to the following links and National Weather Service database:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/co/co.avg.html

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/id/id.avg.html

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/mt/mt.avg.html

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/wy/wy.avg.html

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/mn/mn.avg.html

Most listings in the database are incorporated cities and even by virtue of incorporated cities, there are still many that are colder than International Falls.

I'm not at all trying to be harsh and am just a weather buff and weather stats is a hobbie. Why do insist on posting inaccurate information and it baffles me what the motivation could possible be.

Anyway, in your defense, part of the problem may be with the National Weather service itself and how it reports information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by COScott (talk • contribs) 10:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to define it as relative to populations, but it appears that Fraser is much smaller than I realized. While International Falls is much bigger than any of the others listed (the closest is 2,000+ while International Falls is 6,000+), Fraser is only 900+. So all I'm going to tweak the section to wikilink to the town pages and add the populations, just for reference. If there isn't already, you might also consider creating an article on the "Coldest cities and towns in the United States" or North America, etc. That would be a valuable article. --Bobak (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as harsh. I edited the post a bit. You are correct that International Falls is the coldest city with a population of 5000 of more people, but there are many smaller cities that are colder.

Anyway, you mention Embarrass. I guess the reason it is not more well known is that official records only go back to 1994. After they establish a record spanning a few decades, certainly they would be well known as the coldest city or town in MN.

An article on the coldest cities and towns in the US might be interesting.

Also if you are interested, of course many of the mountain tops are much colder than any of the cities in the US. The coldest place in the entire US is Denali (Mount McKinley) with an estimated annual temp of -28F! In the lower 48, Mount Rainier has an annual temp of 11.9F, but fortuantely no one lives in those places. It's not related to the coldest cities though, but I thought you might be interested.

Started Notre Dame-USC rivalry page

Hello bobak, I invited you to take a look at the new Notre Dame-USC rivalry page I have started. My goal is to get the page up to featured status eventually. I have tried to write it as neutral as possible, but I welcome a Trojan's eye to make it the best possible article.Tedmoseby (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I could probably help you out with the names of the other player's pictures you took. Thanks for the response. I looked at the other rivalry pages like Michigan-OSU and it is largely unsourced and vandalized a lot. I hope the ND-SC page doesn't get like that. I know the main ND football page is vandalized a lot as well. Tedmoseby (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user talk page. Much appreciated. Kaleal92 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The May 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) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Block adjustment

Thank-you for adjusting that! I'm a new admin and I'm probably a bit soft with my blocks. And somehow I placed an username block tag... Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha

You showed those Serbia Vandals!- I especially like the edit summaries you gave them when you blocked them. Hehe, Happy editing- DarkZorro 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:216.220.216.181‎

Please stop replacing irrelevent content on the Dynamic IP. I use a sidekick and it's embarrassing for Wikipedia to have irrelevant comments on not-logged in user pages. Your warnings are entirely pointless on these pages. Bastique ^demandez 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, blocking is preventative, not punitive. If you block a cellphone user in this range, you're not preventing them, because the IP will be completely different in the next edit. Bastique ^demandez 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your logic. I don't know which Wikipedia policy you're following (and I mean that without implying anything demeaning, I honestly don't know off the top of my head). We block RIM users all the time --I found my own cell phone blocked on several occasions-- but I realize that's part of keeping vandalism to a minimum. By erasing the warnings you're giving users of Danger Inc's service a pass, which isn't exactly equal treatment for users. It helps identify IP address that have chronic problems, and like some IP ranges we block for that reason (open proxies, etc), we may have to institute longer blocks for the greater good of the Project. --Bobak (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Warnings serve absolutely no purpose on these pages. These pages are for the use of the IP, not for use as documentation by administrators. It's why they're called "User talk" pages. Furthermore, it generates confusing and persistent "New Messages" (The IPs change with each page load) notices on the phones in question, confusing users of cellphones and making Wikipedia look stupid to the general user. I'm only using Danger Inc.'s service (T-Mobile) because it happens to be the IP ranges I'm usually on. I'm using Common Sense. If you have to document such things, then it should be documented on some other page...not the user page. Bastique ^demandez 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This has started to become very uncomfortable. I had a suspicious you were a Danger, Inc. user because you were deleting the warnings without reference to a policy. I realize that individual users aren't bad people, but that hasn't stopped our (IMO opinion very logical) school block policy. We need to clarify a uniform policy because having an admin protect their cell phone service isn't exactly a clear policy for the entire Project. --Bobak (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE says we shouldn't bite new users, so giving them warnings about vandalism they aren't responsible for isn't a good idea, and WP:AGF says we should assume good faith, so we should assume that the user who will receive the message is not the vandal but a constructive good faith user. Given there's no guideline, let alone a policy for warning messages on talk pages, I would suggest we should defer to the policies I've outlined and should indeed stop leaving warning messages on the talk pages of IP addresses that are highly dynamic. Nick (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if in civil conversation (i.e. not with buddies), you tell a stranger that a person "should be taken out and beaten with a cattle prod" it does not imply civility --am I supposed to hear your tone through the internet? It's rude. Rude = uncivil. Should I assume you weren't being rude? --Bobak (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's please clarify. I'm not protecting my cell phone service. I'm removing confusing warnings from the respective user talk pages because the purpose of a warning is to warn a user. A warning on a user talk page is not intended to document a string of events for admin recordkeeping purposes. If the user will never see the warning then there is no rationale for leaving the message on the talk page, and only serves to confuse the next person allocated that IP (for a single page hit).

Also, I'm not aware of any school block policy; and besides school IPs are not dynamically allocated like this particular cellphone network (I'm unaware of other networks policies).

I'm tempted to suggest a full protect of the respective talk pages, but that wouldn't stop an unaware admin from leaving a warning, and thus completely invalidate the point of protecting it. Having said that, I've discussed the matter with another administrator and we've concluded that since 2/3 of the edits coming from this IP range seem to be nothing more than nonsense or vandalism, he's decided to soft block the range, so the issue is moot. Bastique ^demandez 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Our school block policy allows us to block IPs belonging to schools for up to a year (very, very rare for extreme cases). Normally it goes to a few months, max. Various schools have various IP policies: in some cases you might have a college/university dorm room assigned an IP, what we often find are elementary and high schools where people have access to a computer lab and use that relative anonymity to make frequent strafing runs of vandalism. Sometimes you see an edit history that's a mix of good edits and bad edits, but in those cases we still make the block. As a result, I've seen at least one school district start monitoring its own IPs on Wikipedia to stop the abuse (it was a bit bizarre). In that same vein, I don't see that much of a difference with a phone. Again, for a long time my Blackberry kept being blocked for other's edits, then --about a year or so ago-- RIM seems to have assigned static IPs to phones so it stopped happening. --Bobak (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re USC School of Cinematic Arts

Please be logical in some of your inclusions and deletions of some notable alumni on the list. I will be making some additions. Good reasons need to be put forth for deletions. Best-- Luigibob (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I did not do a thorough check. My apologies. I will make an addition today of Tom Neff a noted alum (you can read the person's Wiki article). I included it last week and it was summarily deleted. Needless to say, the list is subjective, but it seemed like there was a "sole decision maker" watching every edit. Again, my apologies and enjoy your Wiki editing. Best -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just call me J.Lo

How do I get that free 2 week vacation deal? =] BTW, thanks for putting the block on 74.218.208.98. I get so tired of vandals... Trekphiler (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Day

Wishing Bobak/January 2008 - May 2008 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Idontknow610^TM 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X (film)

Hi. I've been watching the great work you've been doing with Malcolm X (film). I wanted to offer a bit of advice.

If you use a reference more than once in an article, after you "name" it the first time, you can refer to it using the shortened name. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Same ref used twice or more.

For example, when you create a reference <ref name=NYT111592>Sheila Rule, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DF173BF936A25752C1A964958260 FILM; Malcolm X: The Facts, the Fictions, the Film], ''The New York Times'', November 15, 1992, Accessed May 23, 2008.</ref>, you can refer to it elsewhere in the article simply as <ref name=NYT111592/>. There's no need to copy and paste the whole footnote the way you've been doing.

Thanks again for the improvements to the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clarence Gaines, 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.

--Olaf Davis | Talk 09:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am surprised that anyone noticed that, flattered to think that anyone cared, and very, very appreciative of the recognition. Thanks! Unschool (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)