User talk:Alphachimp/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

user:151.199.193.124 continued Vandalism

You have previously warned this person, telling them one more time and they'd be blocked. I'm not sure if what they've done today is considered vandalism by Wikipedia, but you might want to check them out. -- 74.129.14.90 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You were...

...vandalized. Teke 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

David Allen Hulse article

I'm awaiting a response from you on the talk page. Thanks. Zos 03:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey man. I reverted some vandalism on your user page- which means you must be doing something right :) Keep up the good work!

Qwe 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

please dont capitalize

iso 639 language codes. this is wrong. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Alphachimp talk 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Town Shoes

I didn't create this article, but I was a little bit alarmed at how fast you jumped on deleting it. Maybe wait a minute...I was just starting to put up a hangon when you took it down. It was created as an attack, but I had removed the attacking part and made it a stub about a reputable (I think) company.

Oh yeah, congrats on getting admin. --Alphachimp talk 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it to as I found it. Edit away. DVD+ R/W 04:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Haha, thanks. I actually copied it to the clipboard when I saw it was deleted, so all is well. Thanks for being conscientious. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou for reverting vandalism edits to my userpage. It is apreciated. - Mike Beckham 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing content

You sent me a message for removing content. I was just in the process of sorting votes on an Article Deletion page. Take a look again at the Protest Warrior deletion page. Any additional sorting would be appreciated, as the article is a mess, and there are some double votes as well. 71.246.245.50 06:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and.. lol. Yes, if you lose at my user contributions, you'll see a history of vandalism, but if you double-check my sorting... oh, to hell with it, nevermind. 71.246.245.50 06:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Need your help

I am writing up a report on the recent massive vandalism attack we just had and that you were a massive help to. If you have anything to add I'll be working on it at User:mboverload/vandalattack --mboverload@ 06:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted on your page. I'll post more if anything comes up, but I think that we are in the clear for now. --Alphachimp talk 06:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Revision

Hi, I noticed you reverted vandalism on Uwe Boll using VandalProof recently. Of course I commend vandal fighting, but I noticed that you reverted to a version before my edit. Was this intentional? I dont think it was, and I understand how easy it is to make mistakes in the heat of vandal fighting. I'm going to change it back to my version. If you object let me know here, I'll watch your page. Nscheffey(T/C) 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't think it was intentional. It's hard to say though, because I've been working really, really fast in lieu of recent AOL vandalism. My apologies again, --Alphachimp talk 06:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

IP vandalism

72.197.168.91 was blocked for user page vandalism. Keep up your excellent anti-vandal efforts. They are appreciated. -- Samir धर्म 07:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding AOL Vandalism

Yeah, AOL vandalism is a pain in the butt to put it mildly. I removed the last batch of AOL IPs since they hadn't been used for the last half hour... most likely the vandal had moved on to other IPs. Please keep reporting them though. While there may not always be an admin watching at the right time we might be able to stop a few in the act. If you'd like I can also semiprotect your user page or any articles the vandal seems to favor. -Loren 07:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't seem to be favoring anything in particular. Actually, AOL has yet to vandalize my page. I really hate this vandalism because it is inserting pornography through wikipedia. I'd hate for some little kid to log on and find it in an article.
Thanks for the explanation. I wish there was some easy solution. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 07:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorting AfD votes

Obviously an anon IP can't sort AfD votes, but do you think the community would trust me to do it? I have 1500 edits and other than moving comments to talk, I haven't commented or voted on that particular AfD. Still, I wanted a second opinion first.--Kchase02 T 07:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you're talking about the Protest Warrior thing. I haven't really done and Wikithings with you, but you look like the kind of person WP people would trust. I would caution though that a high edit count doesn't necessarily mean everything.
By the way, the guy who was "sorting" protest warrior's afd was actually removing people's votes. Even if they had voted before, their actual comments and opinions were removed.
Anyway, someone someone's gotta do it. Thanks for stepping in to do the dirty work. By the way, for everybody's reference, I am going to bed right now. --Alphachimp talk 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Sleep well. I will be careful not to remove anything.--Kchase02 T 07:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Please point out which comment or opinions I removed. There was one case where a person had repeated , about halfway down, the same reminder to add four tildes at the end of their posts. I removed that. Other than that, to my knowledge, I removed no comments. Not to be contentious, but if I did, could you point out it out? 71.246.245.50 07:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved some comments along with the votes, if the comments were in response to statements someone made when making their vote. Take a look. Nothing was removed. 71.246.245.50 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Response on the IP's talk.--Kchase02 T 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've responded on the IP talk page. --Alphachimp talk 21:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I did my best to defuse. Unfortunately, I wasn't supposed to even be sorting votes on AfD pages, and I've since been reverted. Oh well, at least the comments are cleaned-up (even that's a faux pas, but in this circumstance, I think it's better).--Kchase02 T 21:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bagel Bites

Thanks, I kinda know what Im doing, but I wanted to put a picture there, just figuring put how to upload it now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.184.153 (talk • contribs)

No worries. A T1 warning really doesnt mean that much anyway. Thanks for getting back to me and being conscientious. We've had a big spate of ip vandals posting images, and yours seemed to be in line with that. Anyway, I encourage you to create a username. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Alphachimp talk 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)



Digimon

( Not cure If I´m doing that right, but I don´t know how to contact you else ) Digimon: Furimon When first translating the name of Frymon, it was assumed that his name was Furimon, since that would be the direct translation of the Kanji. However, when the official profile was added, it turned out that his name was Frymon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.211.166 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what you are saying. --Alphachimp talk 16:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Here is the japanese Profile:

http://www10.channel.or.jp/digimon/accel/evo/pic.php3?type=j&id=1_495

フリモン = Furimon. フ = Fu リ=ri モ= mo ン=n

Therefore Frymon ( or to be correct: Frimon ) and Furimon are the same Digimon.



Regarding Academic Detailing

Hey. New user to Wikipedia here. I come in peace. I made a place holder article (stub?) for Academic Detailing that was a copy from a scientific journal article (JAMA is the journal.) It was flagged to be deleted because it was copywritten. Based on my very limited understanding of copyright law, I decided to err on the side of caution and take it down, replacing it with (mostly) original text. I don't think that this is vandalism.

The Avorn Boys 17:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) avornboys (nate)

Thanks for the conscientious reply. I'm posting this on both my and your talk page, but it would be a little bit easier if you replied on mine. We can't make "placeholders" for articles that we don't have any content for. A stub would be something like a few sentences long, and that would be just fine.
As for copying out of JAMA (I have a little bit of experience with it), it is a copywritten journal. I doubt that they grant the right to reproduce their content. Even so, Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) just a collection of source materials.
As for the vandalism warning...you removed a speedy deletion notice from the page when you reworded it. It is never, ever acceptable to remove a speedy delete unless you are an administrator or the person that added it.
The other warning was for adding redirects to your article.
I hope that makes things a little bit more clear. Don't let this scare you off. Wikipedia is a pretty open and nice place. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. --Alphachimp talk 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic Detailing, cont.

Perhaps there's a clever way to respond to your response in a threaded manner. I'll look into that.

With regards to not removing a speedy deletion notice, noted. With regards to your points, noted. Learning by doing here, as I read through the tutorial and guidelines. Thanks for your input. All the best. The Avorn Boys 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting the vandalism on my user page, and for telling me about it! Waggers 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


National Post ownership

According to Wikipedia:Five pillars "Wikipedia uses the neutral point-of-view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics."

There are two different opinions on the root cause of the infamous article in the National Post newspaper about "2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy". Only an official National Post explanation is presented currently on Wikipedia.

Wouldn't it be beneficial for wikipedia readers to know that "Asper was above anything else an unabashed Zionist and a proud Jew" (according to CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20031007.html)? This information might help to better understand the probable origin of this error. Is such reference to a government owned Canadian media corporation acceptable at Wikipedia?

I am asking these questions because my original modification was removed by Alphachimp: "17:45, 18 June 2006 Alphachimp m (Reverted edits by 216.99.56.17 (talk) to version 56571174 by Trooperscoop using VandalProof) "

Jhnppv 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to do so in a more reasonable context, for instance if you stated "The owners have stated on multiple occasions that their Jewish background plays a significant part in their choice of editorial positions." or something like that. Just inserting the adjective that they are Jewish, however, seems to be both racist and a personal attack. See WP:ATTACK, specifically "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."
I'm not trying to censor your opinion or prevent you from expressing your view. I'm just trying to get it expressed in a more thoughtful and understanding manner.
Let me know if you have any questions or problems with what I'm saying. I have mirrored these comments on both my and your talk page, but it would be best if you replied on my talk page. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Alphachimp, is this a politically correct version?

The following Larry Zolf quote might be helpful in understanding the root cause of the infamous "Iranian sumptuary law" publication by the National Post: "Asper was above anything else an unabashed Zionist and a proud Jew. ... Today Izzy's National Post is the most strident pro-Israel newspaper in the country [Canada] ..." http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20031007.html

Jhnppv 03:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Alphachimp/Archive 3, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 25 19 June 2006

About the Signpost
Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AWB

Yes, edits like this one are a waste of your time and WP resources. Use AWB for valuable repetitive tasks. examples include, common spelling mistakes, stub sorting, substing templates, adding stub tags to pages in Special:Shortpages, etc. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Alphachimp, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Advertising is not a speedy criterion.

Hi there.

Advertising and spam is not a speedy deletion category. (I tried to make it so once, but it hasn't gotten enough support.) Please use prod if something you want deleted doesn't fall under one of the established WP:CSD categories. Thanks. Grandmasterka 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I've used it a lot before and admins have deleted the pages. Thanks for telling me though. I have copied this on both my and your usertalk. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 03:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I do see a lot of admins speedily deleting ads... I have decided to re-open the discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/New criteria#Policy proposal. Grandmasterka 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

<3

Back before I went on a wikihiatus nobody ever paid attention to the freemasonry pages, it's great to see that some people really do care about the encyclopedia :P Seraphim 05:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have your support. I actually watch recent changes (that's why I got it so fast). The edit to freemasonry just seemed really inappropriate, so I reverted it. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message

I like the welcome you posted to User:Kjb19841984. Where can I get the template for this message? Please reply on my talk. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for conspring with real software

thanks for conspiring with real software to commit consumer fraud with its product realbasic. Using Wiki to shill a commercial with knowingly false information is fraud! Letting Real software employees edit their own article is fraud as this is not an indepent source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.72.236 (talk • contribs)

I'm not conspiring. I'm just replacing obvious vandalism on the page. I would invite you to contribute productively by expressing all opinions in the article. --Alphachimp talk 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk

Removing wrong warning message. Thanks for experimenting with my talk page. 82.182.82.20 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page User talk:82.182.82.20 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. RmB 03:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a first. I've never been warned before. I guess it had to happen eventually. As a point of reference for anyone checking over this page, I have posted on WP:AIV [1] in response to this warning and the complex (at least from my POV) vandalism surrounding it. So yeah. --Alphachimp talk 03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Looked pretty simple to me. "New user" pops up, starts editing an IP user talk page (dare I guess his IP?), retaliates for latest warning to that IP user, then wanders off and continues edits related to previous edits by (gasp) IP User:82.182.82.20. Not exactly a "clean start", eh? Oooo, and a smiley would have made all the difference, y'know? All I ever get are apologies or incomprehensible mutterings. Your vandal has at least a bit of humor, sort of. I'm jealous. :) Peace. Shenme 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Yeah I guess you're right about it being simple. Trouble is, when I try to watch TV and wikipedia at the same time, things here seem a whole lot more complex. These vandals are just hilarious. I'm sure you'll luck out and get a personal vandal soon. --Alphachimp talk 03:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your prod for Anna Svidersky

You have put a prod tag on this article (i.e. for deletion). Please note it was nominated for AFD on May 27, 2006. See discussion. In the light of this, you might like to discuss your objections on the article talk page before proceeding further. Thanks, Crum375 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted an anonymous IP removing a prod tag. Without accompanying changes to the article, this is typically viewed as vandalism. --Alphachimp talk 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading the article, I can see that this probably has some personal significance to you. I'm sorry if I offended you. I hope you understand my thinking behind reverting those edits. I see that you have already reverted my changes. --Alphachimp talk 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
'Personal significance' should play no role in WP, and I personally did not know Anna. But the issues you raise in the prod, i.e. sufficient notability, were raised and addressed during the AfD discussion. In fact, the article was significantly overhauled and improved to mitigate those and other concerns. Thanks, Crum375 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think my original point was that I reverted something that appeared to be vandalism. --Alphachimp talk 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing a prod is never considered vandalism. Anyone may remove it. It is considered 'good form' to state in the Edit note and possibly in the Talk page the rationale for the removal, but is not mandatory. Crum375 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see why you're getting so upset about this. The article is the way you want it. --Alphachimp talk 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not upset at all. I just want to be sure you understand that prod removal is not vandalism. Crum375 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I consider it vandalism without accompanying edits or notes on the talk page if done by an anonymous IP address. Typically, anonymous users remove warnings or deletion suggestions that they do not like. These are almost always reveted and removed. --Alphachimp talk 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Alphachimp, please do me a favor and stay in this Talk page to make this discussion easier to follow (I'll have you on my Watch list). Please read the WP:PROD policy. I think you may be confusing it with WP:AFD. There are some important distinctions between them. For prod, anyone (anon IP or not) may remove the notice, and it is highly recommended to explain why in the Edit note. If the original prod inserter still believes the deletion is justified, it is his/her prerogative to follow up with an AFD nomination, but never by re-inserting the prod notice. OTOH, with AFD, only Admins may remove it, after some due process, the shortest of which is 'Speedy Keep'. Please note that these are important distinctions, and I have no ax to grind at all with you - you seem to be interested in doing the right thing, which is very much appreciated. If you still think I am wrong after having read the relevant policies, please feel free to follow up. Thanks, Crum375 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the conscientious reply. It's interesting to see the difference...that's a little bit different than what I had thought. Even so, doesn't it still break [[2]] as it does not note it in the edit summary? --Alphachimp talk 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you mean "does removing a prod without an Edit note" break the recommendation of the desirability of an Edit note, then yes you are right. But forgetting to include an Edit note can be an oversight (remember WP:AGF), and even if someone intentionally leaves no note - that would still not rise to the level of vandalism, which has a fairly high threshold. Two critical things to remember about term 'vandalism': you have to be absolutely convinced the editor in his/her own mind wanted to reduce the quality of the article, and you want to use the term as sparingly as possible, remembering always WP:AGF. Crum375 20:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
While agreeing with Crum375, I'd like to thank Alfachimp for acting with the best interests of wiki in mind. It's got rather a lot of procedures, and we're all learning about them all the time, I'm sure. Tyrenius 01:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I will keep this in mind in the future. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. --Alphachimp talk 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

why are you removing wikilinks and wikidates?

Why are you removing wikilinks and wikidates? If this is part of some new policy initiative why doesn't your edit summary point to the policy? -- Geo Swan 20:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to an example? I've been removing links that are repeated on the page.--Alphachimp talk 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here. I believe it would always be a mistake to unlike wikidates, because the wikipedia counts on dates being in the wikidate format in order to allow readers to choose their preferred format for date presentation.

Further explanation to follow. -- Geo Swan 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK the date. Yeah that was the only article in which I changed the format of the date. What's the correct format (I couldn't find anything by searching.). --Alphachimp talk 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Correct format is [[February 15]], [[2000]], but only when month, day and year are all present. Otherwise do not wikilink years on their own, unless there is a special reason to do so. Full details can be found here. You might find some useful pages also that I've linked from my user page. Best Tyrenius 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. What is the appropriate policy for repeated date links? For instance, if I have [[February 15]], [[2000]], should the next one be February 15, 2000 because of redudancy? Regards, --Alphachimp talk 06:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You always use the wikilink as shown for month, day, year, no matter how many times it's present. This is because the purpose of doing so is not actually to link to something, but to enable people to set their preferences so that the date is displayed in the format they choose. (You can do this in your preferences settings - try it out.) There has been discussion somewhere that this is confusing (as you've found), and then incorrectly encourages people to wikilink partial dates—such as just the year—as a matter of course, which should not be done. Then someone, like User:Rich Farmbrough has to go round de-linking them as here [3]. I hope this is clear, but get back to me if you wish. Tyrenius 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That's really interesting. I didn't realize that. Perhaps somebody should contact the developers of AWB, because all dates are flagging as repeated links. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 14:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Where and how are they flagging as repeated links? I'm not familiar with that. Tyrenius 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The alerts section that appears whenever you edit a page flags them as being repeated links. It doesn't actively change them (otherwise I would have changed a lot more). The flags can be clicked on, and bring the user to the specific link, presumably to remove it from being a link. Let me know if I'm still not being clear. --Alphachimp talk 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just cottoned on (I think) - you're referring to an AWB facility. I do all my edits manually. You can find the AWB admin email addresses here. [4] By the way, talk page convention is that you started with one colon, so you carry on using one colon. I started with 3, so I carry on using 3. That way you can see clearly who's participating in the talk. Best Tyrenius 23:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the sourceforge, and it looks like they might not be checking it that often. Since it really isn't a technical problem or an emergency, I posted on the talk page for the AWB project. I think what I wrote pretty much encapsulates the problem and suggests a good solution, but you're more than welcome to chime in. Coincidentally, thanks for telling me about the talk page convention. I really appreciate hearing about things like that from other users. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 04:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments from User:163.1.162.140

Hi Alpachimp,

Have you any friends? Best Wishes, Hernan Crespo

I don't think so Hernan. Cheers, Lionel Messi

Well played the other day. Yeah, that Alphachimp definitely has no friends. Regards, Juan Pablo Sorin

He does have a few friends, but no friends on the Argentine World Cup squad 2006. Many Thanks, Javier Saviola

We were all quite friendly with him in the 2002 World Cup squad, but we slightly blamed him for going out at the first round. Yours, Gabriel Batistuta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.162.140 (talk • contribs)

Um ok. Thanks for telling me that. --Alphachimp talk 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

anonymous editer

why on earth did that anonymous editer do such a thing like that? i am really glad you reverted it back. thanks very much! Touth 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Question.

Excuse me, May I ask you something? Because I have some questions on Wikipedia. Today, I've noticed that there is the sentence at the top of the pages. Like this. Early registration for Wikimania 2006 is open until July 9. Scholarships are available;applications are due by June 28. Could you explain to me what the top means? I'm just curious. So, answer in my talk-page. Please. *~Daniel~* 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I checked it out a day or so ago when the message first popped up. Wikimania is an annual conference held by Wikimedia, the parent foundation of Wikipedia. The purpose appears to be to increase relationships and cooperation between members of the different Wiki projects (e.g. Wictionary, Wikipedia, etc.). Early registration helps them to better plan the event...hence the discount. There also appears to be a *massive* discount for active members of Wikipedia (something like 60-70%). As for the scholarships, they cover travel to the event. I'm not sure what the selection criteria is. I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
Regards, --Alphachimp talk 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Query

Hi, I saw your warnings on User talk:59.184.176.197 - is there any automatic way to get the diff showing the reverted version? Does it something have to do with vandalproof? Please reply on my talkpage. Thanks in advance, --Gurubrahma 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The only automatic way I know of is to use Vandalproof. VP automatically appends the message "A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: [http://linktodiff link]. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --~~~~" to the default vandalism warning template. Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

AWB clean-up tag on John Rowan (psychologist)

Hi, I saw that a clean-up tag had been inserted into the article I entered on John Rowan(psychologist). I'm new to Wikipedia. Can you tell me what that clean-up tag means. I don't understand what about the article isn't adequate. I notice that the tag has a "June" date - is there a time-sensitive nature to the tag? Thanks, SteveWolfer 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. - shouldn't there be a 'root' page for "John Rowan" where you could chose between a page for John Rowan(congressman) and John Rowan(psychologist)?

Let me start off by welcoming you to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy it here and decide to stay.
The cleanup tag indicates, as it says, that the page needs to be changed to meet Wikipedia standards. You can find an exhaustive list of these standards here. The time stamp, as applied by me, is a convention for indicating the age of the cleanup task. Sometimes very old articles for cleanup are prioritized for cleanup. Having these month specific categories also reduces congestion to the general Cleanup category.
You are completely right about there needing to be a "root" page for the two John Rowans. On wikipedia, this is called a disambiguation page. They're pretty simple to make, and you can find more about them here.
Specifically, the article for John Rowan is lacking in that it doesn't interwiki link (that occurs when you place double brackets around the title of another article within the text of your article), fails to assert notability in accordance with WP:PROFTEST, reads like a list of accomplishments (see WP:NOT), and does not use proper section headings. It's kind of hard to understand these things with words, so it might help to take a look at the Featured Articles. They're a great model to work off of when refining an article.
I would encourage you not to get discouraged about this. Let me know if you want any help or if you have any further questions. It would be more convenient for you to respond on my talk page. --Alphachimp talk 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Furimon/Frymon

Thse two are the same Digimon. I already proved that, so why was it not changed ? ((unsigned|80.137.249.232}}

You originally linked me to a page that was all in Japanese (see here for our original conversation). I couldn't read or understand anything on that page. I had originally reverted your changes because I felt that you eliminated all of the content on the relevant page. As an editor with very little understanding of "Digimon", I'm going to have to default to the judgment of others in this matter. I would suggest contacting one of the editors on this page for assistance. They're working on a project in regard to Digimon. Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, --Alphachimp talk 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup article

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to help on an article you recently tagged as needing cleanup. It's this article: Jayne Cobb What things jumped out at you as needing work? I can then try and tackle those, thanks! -plange 00:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The article seems fine to me. I was actually just sorting it into an individual cleanup by month category (see here). The actual user that flagged the article is JQF. I have no idea why. I would suggest either contacting him or removing the tag yourself. As I said, I see nothing wrong...but thanks for the nice message! --Alphachimp talk 00:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I've left a note for him :-) -plange 00:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:71.124.114.26

User:RevolverOcelotX is just trying to bully me around because he wants to put a copyrighted image on the Bruce Lee article. Stop reverting back to his edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.114.26) (talk • contribs)

You violated the 3 revert rule and attempted to remove warnings. 3RR ALWAYS applies. It is never acceptable to remove the warnings on your talk page. The best way to handle a dispute is to contact other users or an admin, not to break 3RR. Let me know if you have any further questions. --Alphachimp talk 00:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Im sure you don't know User:RevolverOcelotX but he does this all the time. He bullies people around by putting 3rr tags, NPOV tags, and Vandalism tags. RevolverOcelotX is a troll.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.114.26) (talk • contribs)

He keeps putting on those tags because YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REMOVE THEM FROM YOUR TALK PAGE ONCE YOU HAVE RECIVED WARNINGS °≈§→Robo°_°maeyhem←§≈°Talk 00:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that he breaks WP:3RR a lot. He might even be a troll. Still, that doesn't allow you to break the 3RR. Get some other people on your side or contact an admin. Still, as I said, it is never, ever ok to remove a warning from your talk page. --Alphachimp talk 00:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You are an idiot °≈§→Robo°_°maeyhem←§≈°. My statement clearly implies that none of the tags are valid in the first place. Thereby making him a troll.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.114.26) (talk • contribs)

You still can't remove the warnings. It might be helpful to check out WP:ATTACK in regard to calling Robo Maeyhem an idiot. --Alphachimp talk 00:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And plus, If im an idiot, then Why would I know the rules that you cant remove your warnings, and you didnt? °≈§→Robo°_°maeyhem←§≈°Talk 00:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just take a look at your grammar. Hahahahaha.

That still Doesnt make me an idiot. I did that on purpose because Im too lazy to type apostriphies on the internet °≈§→Robo°_°maeyhem←§≈°Talk 01:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly guys, this is not worth it. Anonymous guy, don't attack Robo (also consider making an account). Robo, it's not worth fueling the fire. Both of you have a ton to offer to WP. --Alphachimp talk 01:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I already have an account. However, I never use it on the Bruce Lee article because I don't want my talk page filling up with RevolverOcelotX's crap.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RevolverOcelotX

Let me clue you in on what User:RevolverOcelotX does. Whenever he is angry with an edit someone makes he starts reverting that users edits in other articles. All my warnings against RevolverOcelotX are valid unlike his warnings. So how can you say I am attacking him? I am the victim. Not only does he do this to me, he does this to everyone else. Now that I am more familiar with Wikipedia, I will avenge all the users he has harassed in the past. To this day RevolverOcelotX continues to bother other users. Now it's time to return the favor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.124.114.26 (talk • contribs) .

Take a look at what User:71.124.114.26 does. He is summarily reverting my edits on many articles and mass posting invalid warnings on my talk page. He is also making extensive personal attacks against me and other editors. Even this post he makes "You're nuts" constitutes a personal attack. He is making threats by saying he'll "avenge all the users". 71.124.114.26's behavior is very disruptive.

You're Nuts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=71.124.114.26

Also look at these invalid warnings that 71.124.114.26 (talk · contribs) posted on my talk page. I think this edit constitutes a personal attack. --RevolverOcelotX 06:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to verify ALL my warnings.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.124.114.26 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that there are significant personal attacks occuring in this matter. I'm currently looking at both your contribs to figure out what's going on. In the meantime, though, please stop the attacks. Back off for a couple of hours. --Alphachimp talk 06:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RevolverOcelotX has also cut and paste all my valid warnings on my userpage. Those must be verified as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.124.114.26 (talk • contribs) .

I'm almost done looking things over. Sit tight for a little longer. Revolver, I know it's him. Anon guy, please sign your comments. --Alphachimp talk 06:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My Opinion

Alright guys, I’ve investigated your edits. I’m going to break down what I found for each of you looking through your edits, state my opinions and make some recommendations. Let me start with User:71.124.114.26 (anon guy). You stated that you have a login that you are not using and do not want to involve in this dispute.
71.124.114.26
Rightfully, you noticed an image ([[Image:Bruceflex.jpg]]) with an invalid copyright tag nearing it’s deletion date (June 23, 2006). Exercising the Be Bold policy, you replaced it with a rightfully sourced image. Screenshots from movies are classified as “Fair Use” under US Copyright Law. Up to this point, I completely support your edits.
Soon later you noticed that RevolverOcelotX had reverted your changes. Incorrectly, you chose to engage in a revert war with him, violating WP:3RR. You tracked Revolver’s changes and made reverts like this to undo his work. This was followed by more reverting, etc.
Meanwhile, Revolver posted 3RR warnings on your talk page. Feeling that these were unjust, you blanked them. DVD-RW, an Admin, reverted your changes. You them blanked his changes and I reverted you, leading to these posts.
RevolverOcelotX
Reviewing your talk page, I can see that you have somewhat of a history of violating the 3RR. You seem to have done some tracking of anon guy and are reverting his changes.
My Opinion
Anon guy was right to change the picture in the Bruce Lee article. Admittedly, it would have been more diplomatic were it discussed on the talk page 1st. He was completely wrong in reverting Revolver’s changes, wrong in erasing talk page warnings (even if they are unsubstantiated or from a non-neutral party), and especially wrong in engaging in personal attacks. He was also wrong in posting comments by someone else on Revolver’s talk page (extremely misleading).
Revolver was wrong in engaging in a revert war on the Bruce Lee article, wrong in engaging in a revert war across other articles (although I feel your edits were good, you should have contacted somebody else), engaging in personal attacks, and especially wrong in modifying anon guy’s comments.
My Recommendation
I think the best solution is for you both to leave each other alone. Wikipedia is a pretty big place, so it should not be that hard, especially is anon guy starts using his username.
Do not revert each other’s changes under any circumstances. If it is blatantly false, trust that another user will revert it (or contact another user to revert it).
Do not post on each other’s talk pages (especially warnings).
Do not engage in personal attacks. I cannot stress this enough.
Do not modify each other’s comments.
Basically, as much space as you two can put between each other is better. I’m willing for my talk page to remain a place where you can have open dialogue/argument. Just stop resorting to personal attacks and comment modification. It’s not helping anything. I’ll contact the blocking admin tomorrow to see about getting anon guy’s page unblocked.
I hope that helps, guys. You both seem like great, intelligent, editors, and I would hate to see this take you away from this project. Feel free to post any comments or disagreements with my thoughts below (sorry this is so long).
Alphachimp talk 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Good comments, and I do agree with Alphachimp, You two need to stay away from each other. °≈§→Robo°_°maeyhem←§≈°Talk 07:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I think your comments seems fair, but I would like User:71.124.114.26 stop reverting many of my edits out of spite such as here. I think User:71.124.114.26 should be blocked for breaking the 3RR on his user talk page, removing his vandalism warnings on his talk page AFTER the final warning, blanking other editor's comments on Talk:Bruce Lee, and making many personal attacks toward me and other editors. User:71.124.114.26 clearly did violate many policies such as 3RR and personal attacks and should be appropriately blocked for doing so. --RevolverOcelotX 07:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alphachimp, you asked for my thoughts. My comment is that the anonymous user is not acting productively but this must always be considered in the context of RevolverOcelotX's equally provocative and uncivil behavior. He uses any opportunity he has to instigate and exacerbate wars, many of which he initiates, over the most trivial of things. The very latest case in point was his removal of the anon's comments from his talk page on the basis that my comments (which were truncated, but attributed) were posted by the anon, which is a common practice on Wikipedia. So not only does he delete the quote of mine, he deletes the quote of the anon. This is uncivil behavior that only serves to escalate the situation. There is an unfortunate tendency of some users to judge a user much more lenient if they are using a registered name at the moment rather than editing anonymously, but observers and those who must intervene should carefully consider the facts of the dispute rather than simply the visibility of the parties involved. YINever 07:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

YINever is clearly biased against me over content disputes and edit wars in the past and this must be considered in the context of YINever's comments. Now removing the User:71.124.114.26's quote is completely legitimate because User:71.124.114.26 DID NOT make that comment and posting it is extremely misleading. An admin supported my actions here when User:71.124.114.26 tried to post a similar misleading comment that he DID NOT make. However, I would have restored the comment that User:71.124.114.26 made himself after I had reverted, but User:71.124.114.26 has re-inserted this himself before I had a chance, so this is irrelevant. The "uncivil behavior" that User:YINever accuses me of is false and this is bias on YINever's part. Here are the facts concerning this matter, User:71.124.114.26 did break the 3RR on his talk page, User:71.124.114.26 did extensively make many personal attacks toward myself and other editors, User:71.124.114.26 did remove valid vandalism warnings on his talk page AFTER the final warning, and User:71.124.114.26 did blanked other editor's comments on Talk:Bruce Lee. User:71.124.114.26 clearly did violate many policies and should be blocked for such. --RevolverOcelotX 07:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it's appropriate to post another user's comment on a talk page, unless it is heavily attributed. It's very important that no user gets the idea that another user has posted something that he has not. The problem with the Wikipedia engine is that it is just too easy to assume that that user actually made that post on that page. Revolver, despite it being innapropriate, I don't think removing the anonymous user's quote using my same text is a good idea. Let someone else do it. Coincidentally, I did have the anonymous vs. registered user thing in mind as I read the contributions. It was just far simpler to look at the contributions from the anonymous side (I looked at both though).
I agree with you that the anon user violated the policies on his talk page by removing warnings. That's why it's locked to anonymous editors. For the short term, I would suggest that you both stay away from each other, especially eachother's talk pages and reverting eachother's changes. --Alphachimp talk 16:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX is deleting my warnings on his talk page! 71.124.114.26 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

71.124.114.26 is mass-posting invalid warnings on my user talk page. RevolverOcelotX 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if they are invalid you cannot remove them. I merely reverted the warnings User:RevolverOcelotX removed and added warnings for removing those warnings. 71.124.114.26 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

71.124.114.26's has mass posted irrelevant and invalid warnings on my user talk page AFTER the final warning. In the process User:71.124.114.26 has also clearly broken the 3RR. RevolverOcelotX 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings off a userpage are considered vandalism. Therefore the 3RR does not apply. 71.124.114.26 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is vandalism of my user talk page because he has reinserted old comments which I had already responded to on my talk page and mass posted invalid warnings AFTER the final warning. RevolverOcelotX 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, the final warning does not apply because you are not allowed to delete warnings in the first place. 71.124.114.26 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Those warnings that 71.124.114.26 spammed on my user talk page are clearly inappropriate. He has also reinserted old comments onto my user talk page. I believe a block would be necessary for User:71.124.114.26's behavior. User:71.124.114.26 has already broken the 3RR yesterday leading to his talk page being protected. And today, he has once again broken the 3RR on my own talk page AFTER the final warning. --RevolverOcelotX 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: comment re User talk:71.124.114.26

Thanks, it took me about an hour to make it and get the HTML Tags correct °≈§→Robo°_°maeyhem←§≈°Talk 00:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned Comments

Bullshit, this is an obvious insult to the intelligence of any spined creature. The guys that gave this report were obviously serving the army all their lives being cannon folder and if they were good little cretins they would have the privilage to have their heads serve as wall breaker. A report from the guys that found German con camps unhuman but on the other hand having even worse for POWs, by that we see how this all is kind of retarded, it's a custom in all other healthy societies to respect the people of the views (our view cannot be the best yet, but we now see the omissions of that era) to respect a soldier, the same way that Germans did (Nazi), they at least were human in this, but the United States of the Wolf-Fucker needs to be equal in unhumanity to the Soviet Union, the Soviets lost 20 millions of their boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.152.224.154 (talk • contribs)

Um, ok thank you for telling me that. Perhaps you should post this on the article talk page. --Alphachimp talk 01:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Honestly I forgot ;-). All done now. Prodego talk 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bonafide.hustla deleting warnings from his talk page

Hi, there is a user, Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs), who is repeatedly deleting 3RR warnings from his talk page and is close to breaking the 3RR on List of Chinese Americans. Can you take a look at this? Thanks --RevolverOcelotX 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not break the 3RR. I made one revert on the article when RevolverOcelotX placed the warning on my talkpage. Then made 2 more edits, when RevolverOcelotx placed POV info on the article. Thanks for your time.--Bonafide.hustla 00:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla is POV pushing on many articles including List of Chinese Americans and Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China. He is also continually removing 3RR warnings from his talk page even when warned not to remove them. --RevolverOcelotX 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I know what vandalism is. I really think you're making too big of a deal about it, and you shouldn't have sent me that message. I hate Paul Edinger with a passion, and I think what he does is annoying, is all.

The warning is not justified on the ground that I only made one edits in the last 24 hrs in that particular article when RevolverOcelotx placed it on my talkpage. RevolverOcelotX is the one who's doing POV pushing. Thanks for your time and sorry to take up so much space on your talkpage. :P--Bonafide.hustla 01:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The warnings are justified as Bonafide.hustla made 3 reverts on List of Chinese Americans and Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, Bonafide.hustla has BROKEN the 3RR by repeatedly removing warnings from his talk page. --RevolverOcelotX 01:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I only made 1 edit when you placed the 3RR tag on my talkpage. Therefore, it's not justified. Plese stop vandalizing my talkpage.--Bonafide.hustla 01:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is justified as Bonafide.hustla broke the 3RR on his user talk page by repeatedly removing valid warnings. He clearly broke the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm checking it out guys. I'll tell you what I think in a few. --Alphachimp talk 01:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me start off by saying that my talk page space is never a problem. I'm always open to people posting here, as long as there is no revert war going on.
Having reviewed the edits, I agree with Revolver that Bonafide has engaged in an extended campaign to disassociate Taiwanese people from Chinese. Whether or not the Taiwanese are Chinese, I am extremely troubled by the edits going on, particularly on Hustla's talk page. The 3RR was clearly violated by both of you there. A simple look makes it perfectly clear. NPOV may also have been violated, but 3RR is a much more "hard and fast" rule.
Bonafide, it is never acceptable to remove warnings from your talk page. Even when these warnings are clearly false, reverting them is blatant vandalism that frequently results in blocking. Engaging in a revert war in response to warnings reverted is even worse.
Revolver...I hate to say it, but you too have a pattern of inflammatory edits. Reverting someone's changes repeatedly up to the 3RR limit across Wikipedia is highly, highly inflammatory. You did it last night with anon guy and seem to have done it before.
That being said, I think you both have a lot to offer, but you need to be careful with your edits. Reverting someone's changes should really only be done when they are blatant vandalism or mistakes (e.g. page blanking). Engaging in a delibrate pattern of reversions will only serve to create animosity and blocks/bans.
I recommend that you guys do not post on each other's talk pages, particularly warnings. Any existing warnings should stay there. Instead of removing them, place a note as to why you disagree with them, accompanied by links to allow users to easily follow your point. If you have an editing dispute, contact me or another neutral party to take a look. I'd be open to any further questions or comments from either of you, and would encourage you to use my talk page as a neutral place for dialogue.
Regards, --Alphachimp talk 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 26 26 June 2006

About the Signpost
Quicker deletion of non-compliant images proposed News and Notes: 100 x 1,000, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)