User talk:KeithTyler/Archive3

Aqua Teens and Kidwriter

I know that the Mooninites came from Kidwriter, but you're right, it is unsubstaniated until I find some proof. If I can ever find some, i'll put it back in, but for now, the current entry is accurate enough for me, they do look Atari-esque, everything looked that way in computers back in the early 80s.

Comment added by User:Karmafist on 09:29, July 16, 2005

Google Moon

I am not against the merge. It was a redirect to Google Earth but the article wrote nothing about Google Moon so I created a stub for that. SYSS Mouse 01:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the quote at the Sam Houston high school discussion page

This was posted awhile ago, but I wanted to tell you something related to it:

"Weak keep -- there's this bit on the high school's page that, if expanded upon, might lend the school some notability IMO: Sam Houston [High] has Texas' oldest high school newspaper, the Aegis, started in 1889. In addition, the world's first girls' Military Drill Squad, formerly known as the Black Battalion, but now called the Tigerettes, originated at our school. It's not much, but it's something. - KeithTyler 17:25, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) But nobody wants to do that work -- they just want to have tens of thousands of high school articles that have nothing different between them and no potential for notability. Lazy, cowardly, and presumptuous. - 19:22, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)"

I didn't realize that the information was on that website! After I saw that post, I added that stuff to the article. Thank you! WhisperToMe 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Advocate

Are you willing to help with This postulated ArbCom case? I'd appreciate a prompt decision, so that I can look elsewhere if need be. I am going to be absurdly busy, so the help will be especially necessary. Sam Spade 17:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with dispute on article "Friends of South Asia"

Hi Keith. I found your name on the AMA members list, and I'm hoping you can offer some advice.

I've been working on an article about Friends of South Asia (FOSA), a small Silicon Valley peace group made up of expat Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans advocating for peace between their two countries through vigils, letter-writing, etc. Apparently FOSA is very strongly hated by Indian and Hindu nationalists, who believe that FOSA is harming Indian and/or Hindu interests by calling for secularism and peace between the two countries.

When I encountered the article, it was short on facts, and presented in a way that appeared biased against the group (see initial revision). I've been working on the article, and added a substantial amount of detail -- both on the group, as well as on specific criticisms. ISKapoor and Cardreader kept deleting segments of the text that didn't match their POV, so I started sourcing every statement possible. (See my most recent revision.)

Those two users continue to delete significant chunks of the text with kneejerk reversions (at least four in the past four days). Of particular interest is the fact that they keep deleting any evidence that FOSA is critical of the Pakistani government (presumably because it doesn't jive with their POV that the Friends of South Asia organization is supposedly pro-Pakistan/anti-India); they then go on to complain on the talk page that the organization is pro-Pakistan/anti-India, in spite of the fact that they've been deleting fully-cited information to the contrary.

If you want to find out about the Friends of South Asia organization, check out the third-party references at the end of my last version of the article text (half of those references keep getting deleted by the Indian nationalist editors).

I posted this to Wikipedia:Third opinion two days ago, but haven't gotten any third party feedback. Can you look at the article's talk page and history? Can I get some advice on what to do next? I hate revert wars, and want to avoid getting into a stupid contest of I-can-revert-faster-than-you.

- Anirvan 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Advocate

Hi Keith, I have a situation that may require some advice and assistance (see [1]). It's quite a complicated business involving many users, with a highly contentious content dispute and questionable behaviour by certain users. It looks likely to enter arbitration after 2 failed mediations and 2 rfc's. If you are available I would very much welcome your advice, I'll also be able to explain the issues in more detail. Thanks.--Zleitzen 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dingle

I propose that you do bring it up at deletion review. In the meantime I have to deleted it as a repost of previously deleted material. -- Fr a ncs2000 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Furedi

Hi Keith!

There was no AfD discussion for Ann Furedi. The revision history is somewhat confused, but please bear with me as I try to give you what I think are the facts, from the point I came in, anyway:

Article created }
Article nominated for speedy delete } these three steps possibly happened a couple of times
Article deleted }
Article recreated
Article nominated for speedy delete
Author contacts WP:ANI and asks for help on why her article keeps disappearing
Article deleted
Article restored by an admin
Article nominated for speedy delete
Article deleted by me
Original admin drops me a line (in effect, admins are wheel-warring in good faith without knowing it at this point)
Article restored be me
Talk page conversations between me, original admin, CSD nominator and author about the article, its deletions, recreations and future
Article tagged for notability and categorisation requirements by me
Fairly good faith slow-motion "edit war" between inexperienced editors on article
Discussion on article talk page starts to reach the beginning of a consensus (or at least a consensus on how everybody is acting in good faith) thanks to a third party stepping in
You write to article talk page
I write to you.

Of course, this is horribly convoluted, and if you came in to it in the middle, you probably didn't have a clue what was going on. For that I apologise - a Wiki should makes these things transparent; when they're obscured, they're really really obscured but that wasn't clear when I logged off last night. It is now!

In theory, given a couple of days leeway, the editors on the page should be able to come to some calm understanding about the future of the article. The options on the table appear to be expansion, merger or (AfD) delete. The article will not be speedied again, but that isn't to say it won't be deleted. I'm confident that the editors in question can come to a consensus given a bit of time; the article remains on my watchlist and I'll keep it that way. Both editors are acting in good faith, so that should see things through.

Hope this potted explanation helps. If not, drop me a line with your questions and I'll do my best to answer them! Thanks ➨ Я Є DVERS 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate

I know exactly why I'm an advocate and it's not so I'll become and admin, if you see one of my early say "cases" you will see my approach was a lot different. It was just with Jeff I didn't agree with him at all and I couldn't see his point. Well it's over --Mahoga ny 12:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't one of the involed tried to --Mahoga ny 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (I took it to the admin. notice board after a couple of days)[reply]

Can either one of you talk to this person? He is at it again, now making references to "rabbit666" on his talk. Ideally im looking for him to leave me alone- what ive wanted since the first day this started.

Despite the "arbitration process" im still being put through this- is that how it is meant to work? Is there someone in authority, I mean real authority on wikipedia that can look into this? This is not right. Fluffy999 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to admin. Incident board but I'm still here for you Fluffy --Mahoga n y 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspams

You need some help with those spamesque HistoryLink contribs? Dreadlocke 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the end it turns out they took their ball and went home after their promotional attempts were flaunted

Yeah, I noticed they stopped contributing - too bad, because they have a nice site with some good information - they just needed to stop advertising... I've been working my way down their contribution list, fixing the entries like you describe. Dreadlocke 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we got'em all. Dreadlocke 19:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working ont this. It is really too bad that they apparently wanted to participate only if they could do blatant promo. And, yes, it is an excellent site, easily the best on its topic.

The funny thing is, their own site follows academic citation standards, so you'd think they would understand. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Amiri Baraka.jpg

Please see the comments on the uploader's talk page: User talk:America jones. --MECU≈talk 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Regenstein Library, University of Chicago.jpg

Don't need one. It's been listed as an unfree image for over a year.Geni 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mary-Harris-Mother-Jones.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mary-Harris-Mother-Jones.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CED

I have re-written my article on the ced videodisc, and would like you to reconsider keeping it. Also, just wanted say the facts on the marketing faliure of the disc were fairly accurate, since the format was largely unsuccesful with North America, although it did take off in Japan.Oliverdl 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking, is Selectavision the same as CED Videodisc?Oliverdl 07:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that I got my information from a book, which called the Selectavision the "CED Videodisc", giving no mention of the former. Also, a google search brought up the Selectavision page, which had nothing about the CED Videodisc, as well as a page to buy CED Videodisc labels, which made no connection to the fact that CED Videodiscs were the same as Selectavision discs. And finally, the grammar and typing (not spelling) errors were very minor, due to my re-writing the page very quickly, but you made it seem like it was illiterate. The entire tone of your response on my talk page did not conform to wikiquette, which expects courteous and constructive comments from contributors, and you did not follow the proper guidelines when you put the page up for deletion. I am still fairly new to wikipedia, and it would be nice if people with more experience like you could be more helpful and constructive.-Oliverdl 21:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White tea

Hi. You asked the caffeine content of white tea on its talk page. In case you don't check it there, I'm pasting my response here: I emailed a few companies that carry white tea. One said White tea has approximately the same amount of caffeine as all other teas (I've heard the "all tea has the same amount of caffeine" thing before, but then why do so many disagree? Is it because they use difference amounts to brew a cup?), one said it has slightly less than green tea, and one said it has about 15 mg per cup (as opposed to 20 for green and 40 for black). Indium 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on RfAr

I believe that User:Chooserr is making potentially very dangerous edits to the birth control articles, such as Condom and Contraceptive patch. I'd like to file an RfAr to get him to stay away from all such articles, and since your statement on the AMA page says that you like to keep the process from getting overused, I figured I'd check with you first. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful pointers there. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captcha

Hello Keith. Actually—Yahoo! e-mail uses Captchas to prevent senders of spam [2]. Even if they did not, several of the discussions were "theoretical" about what not-yet-in-practice cost-based techniques could be used—so it would have fit. I think it's important to have Captchas directly linked from at least some major spam overview articles because they're very widespread and yet obscurely named. I spent way too long trying to figure out what they were called, even with the help of Google searching. Would you please restore my edit or find a place for the link that is more suited to your liking? Metaeducation 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with your assessment. Yahoo! Mail uses CAPTCHAs only in its web interface. Web and E-mail are two different things, despite the fact that you can create gateways between them to access one via the other. That turns Yahoo! Mail into a website that serves as an email client. I can have a Yahoo! Mail account, use it with my own private mail reader via POP, and never encounter a single CAPTCHA.

Using CAPTCHA at a website that lets you send and view mail is the same as using CAPTCHA at a website that lets you post to Usenet.

If Skype had CAPTCHA before you could make a phone call, you wouldn't edit Telephony to include a blurb about using CAPTCHA to prevent harassing telephone calls. It's not part of the telephony industry, or the e-mail "industry", it's part of the web industry. The fact that technologies can intertwine doesn't mean their trends apply to each other.

CAPTCHA in e-mail would require a multi-message transaction. You'd send an email to a mail server, the server would respond with an e-mail containing an attached image, and you'd email the server back with your response to the CAPTCHA challenge. This is conceivable, but is not what Yahoo! Mail is doing, and ATM hopefully no one else either.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies, I'd not gotten around to replying to the comment you left responding to this for some time, lost in the shuffle.)

In your scenario it wouldn't belong in Telephony. But I'd certainly expect a link from Telephony to the "Stopping Unwanted Telephony Calls" article (if one existed). And then in the "Stopping Unwanted Telephony Calls" article, I'd think a mention of Skype's choice could easily make sense.

I'm a technical person so I can appreciate your desire for a narrow definition of email. Yet Wikipedia kind of has the issue of putting information where people expect it to be. Note the google test for "email" brings up a lot of hits on clients like Thunderbird or Outlook Web Access or the front end of Yahoo! mail—not the SMTP and POP3 protocol.

Simply put, I didn't know what CAPTCHAs were called and I thought I would find something about them in the article on Spam, stopping Spamming, or email Spam. When I finally found the article after about a half hour of varied searching, I thought it sure seemed difficult. So I wanted it clearer in the Spam article hierarchy...as it is becoming very prominent as a technique.

Fortunately it seems that since January 2006 when we first discussed this, someone has added it to the main Spam article (in fact, my hopes that visibility of the article would be raised somehow has been realized if you look at CAPTCHA's what-links-here). I've also noticed that these days a lot of sites are putting "What's this?" links on CAPTCHA's and sometimes even mention the name.

Anyway, just tying that up. It does look like the spam hierarchy has been getting a nice sort on it and so good to keep the effort on making it work better. Metaeducation 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]