User talk:ArmadilloFromHell/Archive 07/Month Jan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continues from User talk:ArmadilloFromHell/Archive 06/Month Dec


Contents

[edit] How can an IP address be a sock puppet?

See, this is why Wikipedia fails. I found the template and edited it. Looks a lot better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.110.233 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Armadillo

Ok? I got it.King Lopez 09:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You might however, consider that after a week or two, doing this Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Wales

Please explain your revert on Jimmy Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.146.173 (talk • contribs)

Probably an error, I'm having problems today, where I've reverted a few items incorrectly that did not display the latest history. (However, please sign your name when making posts.) Also please explain why you are removing the GA tag from Talk:Judaism --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Sorry but i think you have the wrong person there, recheck the IP u had, issue appology and fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.33.217 (talk • contribs)

No apology, This IP address altered a user page User:Fact Finder2 by adding a message, and did it four times. As a result of that disruption, the page had to be blocked (Protected User:Fact Finder2: Persistent anon vandalism), and the IP address was blocked for 24 hours. If in fact you are another user using the same IP address, then I suggest you get a private account so as not to get messages like this and to avoid getting blocked again.--ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have a private account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.42.63 (talk • contribs)

But if you don't use it, you get the spam messages. Note that I assume you are the same person posting these messages, and you had a different IP address each time. So you end up getting blamed for other's transgressions. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Thanks for catching my spelling errors and helping to correct them. I type like an illiterate blind goat sometimes! --Mike Searson 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I also type very badly, and make atrocious spelling mistake I don't see, but I tend to catch spelling mistakes I see elsewhere. I think I originally added a link to Emerson Knives from KA-BAR so I just noticed the article name change. I only wish I had the money to buy one of his knives. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: External link opinion

Re your message: I didn't particularly find the link that fascinating. Content of the website was a little weak and out of date. However, other editors are leaving it in, so consensus seems to be to leave it in. Bring it up on the talk page. By the way, there is a formal third opinion page. Better to use that than to ask me. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 18 Million Jews or 14 million

Why would you want to add contradictory information to the page. In two places, it says that the number of Jews in the world is 14 and 18 million. It can't be both (unless you are talking about different groups of Jews). It follows that the number that has a better reference should win. Yours has no reference whatsoever.

It really is helpful when making posts to link to the article in question and sign your messages. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages --- Judaism refers to both figures in the article and ...adherents of Judaism numbered around 14 million followers, refers to footnote 1, which in turn points to Jewish population - if you read that article, it shows that there are different values provided by different sources ...Additional sources cite the population at numbers ranging from 12.8 million to 18.2 million. By your reasoning, that article should also not have conflicting values. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge
My reasoning is that saying that the population is cited by different sources to be somewhere between 12.8 million to 18.2 million is quite different than placing 14 million in one paragraph and 18 million in the next paragraph - making people think that the article contradicts itself. To state uncertainty is quite different from certainly stating a falsehood. I suppose that this means that 14 million is also an incorrect number. Perhaps the solution to this problem may be to refer the reader to another article which will give a range of values. What do you think? - PiKeeper 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that citing a range and using the same references as Jewish population or pointing to that article might be a good solution. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny Guy

King Lopez (talk · contribs) keeps tagging his own talk pages with warning templates, making it look very confusing as to what is real and what is fake. Also has problems with images being used without fair use, and also awards himself barnstars using two sockpuppets Dolphiner (talk · contribs) and Lioner (talk · contribs). Possibly related to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cyber Lopez. Currently changing various performers infoboxes and adding what appears to be unsubstantiated info, such as height.

--ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you are a smarter administrator than I thought. But I have been editing Wikipedia for 2 years now and I know all the secrets to it. I am also a computer programmer. I can see you still need more practice on this. Have a good one. Baldo Lopez 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)