User talk:Amcfreely

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to VandalProof! 2 Reginald Finger 3 Removed link to 21 CFR Part 11 - Electronic signature 4 Wrestling articles 5 24.86.67.82 might be a vandal 6 Bot gone wild? 7 Rush-Bagot Treaty 8 VandalProof Problems 9 Request for edit summary 10 A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks) 11 MTBE carcinogens 12 VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Amcfreely! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Wisden17 11:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reginald Finger

In your recent edits to the HIV vaccine article and others, you added some content regarding controversy about Reginald Finger, whose name resembles your user name. Do you know of a web page or specific edition of the New Yorker with the quote you gave there? The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Specter, "The Bush Administration's war on the laboratory," The New Yorker, March 13, 2006, p. 58. Amcfreely 18:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Amcfreely. I added that reference to the article. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link to 21 CFR Part 11 - Electronic signature

In your comment listed below you mentioned useless commercial links, did you read the page? There were no toher pages referencing electronic & digital signature information. The page in question https://privasign.com/laws-cfr-fda.asp contains a detailed breakdown of the implementation, definitions, controls, requests and actions, as well as other extremely relevant information. This was not a generic bogu link added to the page, but rather a precise and intended link for this page. Please explain how we may change it to add it to the page, or why it was rejected?

Thank you,

Jason McKay

There is an include file that wraps into every page. The point of the include is to demonstrate that PrivaSign complies with the law. That does not mean the information contained on the page dealing with the laws or acts, as it might be, are not completely unique and valuable. There is very little information on your site that deals directly with electronic & digital signatures as described in the UETA, CFR and SOX world. We do speak about our service, but we also provide very valuable information. If that is a violation, I apologize, I did not realize we could not discuss our service while providing information. Is there a tactful way to address or solution and give the information to the public? In other words are there any example links you are aware of where a private corporation has posted information about laws, mentioned their services, but not been removed for advertising? We obviously want to get the information out there, to help educate the market, but we also want to respect your rules.

Thank you,

Jason

p.s. - if you recieved this twice I apologize, I am not comfortable with this system yet, and I wanted to be sure I got you help on this matter.

[edit] Wrestling articles

Howdy! I reverted a number of articles that I thought had been vandalized. Have you been in contact with the anon user 66.228.245.85? If it turns out NOT to be vandalism I must apologize for jumping to conclusions. The pattern I saw included blanking of Yu-Gi-Oh! at one point. Schmiteye 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24.86.67.82 might be a vandal

He does site sorces or readd ft. or lbs. or does he covert the metric height weight BionicWilliam 03:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

66.228.245.85 was editing the same articles (also height and weight) until blocked for what looked like vandalism. Schmiteye 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot gone wild?

Your bot somehow turned the artcle on St. Kevin into a completely different article about a comdey film. Better look into that. Kevlar67 06:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, dunno what happened. Will check this out and maybe it as a bug. Amcfreely 12:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush-Bagot Treaty

No worries - I meant to include an edit summary when I edited that article, but I got distracted and when I turned back to the computer just clicked to save the edit. 172.209.131.246

[edit] VandalProof Problems

Thanks for reporting the problem with the incorrect reversion, and I'm sorry about that. I also noticed that you earlier used VP to add a vandal to AIV who was already there, and I just wanted to let you know that, in the next release, it will automatically check to see if the vandal is listed before adding him/her. Sorry about all the problems--VP is still at a pretty early development version. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Amcfreely, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MTBE carcinogens

Sorry, I don't know how to reply to your comment to me so I'm posting a new one.

the EPA has stated that MTBE is a potential carcinogen, not a proven one:

http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/faq.htm#concerns

thus, I think the term "suspected" is appropriate.

[edit] VandalProof 1.2 Now Available