Talk:ALF

message: I have removed it from the ALF list because it is not a reliably verified acronym tha tthe organization uses. Another editor is attempting to create a connection by altering that article. I am not sure that is altogether disruptive, but it does seem a bit like using WP to make a point. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are the sources given by Viriditas not reliable? They seem to be reliable sources to me. A U.S. government publication, a usage by the organization itself, as well as a usage in a magazine. Those all seem reliable to me. Although Viriditas is probably trying to include more names to prove his point, when he actually does find reasonable abbreviations with citations like these, we should include them. If he tries to include something without a citation, though, then it should not be included. So long as a person could type in "ALF" looking for the American Legacy Foundation (which can be shown by usage of the acronym), then it should be included in the disambiguation page. This doesn't mean that we have to give it a prominent position, though. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for an answer from Arcayne. There are at least 649 references to "ALF" and the "American Legacy Foundation" on Google, 103 on Gnews,  and 49 on Google Scholar. —Viriditas | Talk 09:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Legacy Foundation

message: Is there any evidence that Alfold, Alford, Alfreton, and Alfriston are called Alf? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove them in that case. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure where to find such a link, but I mentioned earlier that whilst traveling through the UK, the locals called Alford as well as Alfriston Alf for short. Maybe its not notable enough to mention (as my knowledge of the local colloquialism is a primary source), but I think there might be local references to it in the local chamber of commerce stuff that is rife within the UK. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not been able to find anything so far. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such is life. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For Alfreton, this headline from a local paper would only make sense if 'Alf' was indeed a local nickname.  But once we get to reverse engineering from bad jokes, we're on pretty dodgy ground.  Bucketsofg 03:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English place names

message: Good article here about the "wikigroaning" triggered by equating television programs and video games with topics of historical or social importance. I was powerfully reminded of this page. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A well written and amusing article, SlimVirgin.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikigroaning

message: Lol! Just kidding (hmm....or am I?) Seriously, the DAB page looks pretty nice. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do DAB pages ever become FA articles?

message: Arcayne has requested citations for the term ALF being used to refer to Application Layer Filtering.  Here are two recently published books that use the term: Since the consensus on dab pages seems to be that they don't require citations, I'm leaving these refs on the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but these are not immediately verifiable, and you are fully aware that you have not earned AGF just yet. As well, when a revert situation arises, it is fairly customary to actually await a response before simply reverting. As it is, you are at three reverts. If you revert again, you will be reported for 3RR. As well, this seems a good time to perhaps remind you of the uncivil behavior of accusing folk of bad faith edits. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, these citations are in fact immediately verifiable.  Try Google Books, where you find both books online. You haven't provided any valid justification for your continuing removal of links on this dab page as you did above with American Legacy Foundation etc. I can think of no good reason why you persist in disruptive edit warring.  You asked for cites and I provided them.  You claim that they are not immediately verifiable, and I tell you that they are.  This type of continuing editing behavior from you that persists over many months seems to be entirely in bad faith. —Viriditas | Talk 11:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More cites: —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I will check Google books. Understand that if the acronym doesn't appear, the instance will be removed from the dab page. You have not yet proven that its usage is in fact noteworthy. Again, I remind you that you have used up your reverts for the day for this article, placing you right up agains the 'electric fence.' As well, I would ask that you confine your remarks to the subject at hand. If you find significant problems with my editing style, please find somewhere else to edit. Please do not make further personal attacks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find significant problems with your editing style, as do other editors who have asked you to explain your continuing removal of cited content.  You've made these type of bad faith claims before and your tone of voice and continuing claims are absurd. This does not imply in any way that I should find somewhere else to edit: it implies that you need to change your behavior.  Ask yourself one question: how have your edits improved this dab page? —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My comments are directly related to this subject which concerns your editing behavior: the continued, unjustified removal of referenced dab entries.  I don't see any "personal attacks". Read this thread and the previous ones I linked to above. Ask someone to explain it to you if it still doesn't make sense.  Furthermore, the initial post in this thread, a polite message authored by myself that fulfilled your cite request, was met with a personal attack - from you: "you have not earned AGF just yet".  You may want to review WP:NPA in case you have forgotten what it actually says. —Viriditas | Talk 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making it easy, Viriditas. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have avoided the issue of citations altogether and replied to my provision of cites with a personal attack maligning my character, and now, you are falsely accusing me of attacking you.  So to recap, you asked for cites and I provided them.  You responded by claiming that you can't trust me (a baseless attack), threatening (another attack) to report me for reverting your bad faith edits.  I responded to your attacks by sticking to the subject of bad faith citation removal with linked evidence, pointing to a pattern of your bad faith edits to this page involving the repeated removal of cited content, and you then  respond with more false accusations.  It looks like you are trying very hard to misdirect this discussion, but it won't work. —Viriditas | Talk 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, already bored. Anyway, can you provide how the usage is noteworthy? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the links I gave you make the case that it is a  notable feature of firewalls and information security: "...considered by many firewall experts to be the most secure of the filtering technologies." (Shinder, 2005)  It's also considered as notable as deep packet inspection. (Noonan, Dubrawsky, 2006). —Viriditas | Talk 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite request for application layer filtering