User talk:Georgeryp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Georgeryp 's talk page on Wikipedia. If you would like to leave a message click here or click on the "+" next to the "edit this page" tab above. Please sign your message using ~~~~ (four tildes) or click on the signature icon after typing your message. I will probably reply on this page unless you indicate you would prefer otherwise. Thanks. --Georgeryp

(this box is based on the one on zzuuzz's talk page)

[edit] Re: Casey Serin article

Thanks for your help on the Casey Serin Page--Jerichohill817 23:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. I was surprised the NPR reference url pointed to a totally different source, something like BusinessWeek; probably just a copy-n-paste-n-forget error. Also, the old Economist URL pointed to a small excerpt and registration-only page, so I'm glad to find (although it's kind of odd) that the full article is publicly available. If there's anyway someone can document how much cash back at close he received on each of his properties that would be very interesting. --Georgeryp 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we know because he self-reported it on his blog, but that's not a useable source. I'm trying to find more. Thankfully, we know the maximum cashback from the Scotsman Guide, and for any of his properties, its >3%, therefore fraudulent. But gotta find more listings...perusing foreclosure.com right now--24.254.224.101 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Food Testing Strips article

Hi George are you referencing to E.coli versus E.Coli? You made reference to spelling. I will run spell check on each section. Thanks--Desaderal 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I made two changes: corrected a mispelling ("catagories") and formatted some links: italicizing E.coli and since the wikilink E.coli redirects to "Escherichia coli", I changed that (see Help:Links#Wikilinks for how those work). To view the changes anyone made on an article, click on the history tab at the top of the Food Testing Strips page, then select the two versions you want to compare with the radio buttons/circles, and hit the "Compare selected versions" button. --Georgeryp 16:07, 18 April 2007

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your question on my talk page

No problem on the school article vandalism revert. As for your question on the leniency (and it was a good question):

Looking at it again, I would have to admit that the warning should have been higher. Normally I check the recent contributions, as well as recent warnings, before deciding what level warning to use. This time - and I'm not sure why, although I think I was just distracted by something in the background - I went straight to the talk page to issue a warning and as there were no previous warnings, I went with a level 2 warning. (Well, I think it was safe to assume that there wasn't any good faith involved with that particular edit) Then, I looked at his/ her recent edits and realized that I had to clean up after him (or her).

As a general principle, I think that it is better not to retroactively issue warnings for edits made before the edit that initiates the first warning, with subsequent warnings (if needed) escalating from that level. However, if I had checked his previous edits -and I really wish I had ;O) - I would have gone with a level three or maybe even a level 4, and I wouldn't have linked the warning to a particular edit. It wasn't as much the number of edits that would have brought that response; it was the nature of the edits.

If it had just been a case of three or four edits with minor graffitti or some kid saying he thought someone else was cute, then I think a level one or two warning (at most) would have been in order, and they normally work. But mentioning the names of people in the context he did in his later edits seems malicious and should have got a higher warning or possibly a notification to admin level.

So, what you can take from all this is that dealing with vandalism isn't an exact science ;O) Hope all of this helps Flowerpotman ^talk-_{wot I've done} 01:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very through reply. We got on his trail, but just both a little late and he's gone now anyway. I see what you mean by it not being an "exact science". It's all judgement calls: assessing the nature of the vandalism, then how much time one has to dig how deep into it, and even the timing of when the set of vandalism is discovered. --Georgeryp 01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert of Housatonic Community College

Your recent edit to Housatonic Community College (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 07:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Going to request a speedy deletion since the bot won't let me revert the obvious copyvio of [1] --Georgeryp 07:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this page, I didn't realize it was a copyvio! It was nearly 4 in the morning where I was, so forgive me.... :). Speedy Delete is the best thing you can do there. Thanks a ton! Kntrabssi 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tunxis Community College

I was not aware at the time that it was a copyvio when I put the tags up. Had I been aware of it, I would have placed it on speedy delete first. It looked like an advertisement, which is why I put up the tags. AEMoreira042281 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand. I just wanted to mention it since it was one of the first times I reported a copyvio and I'd rather communicate too much (you maybe had it on your watchlist anyway) than too little. FYI, I started it fresh as a sub now: Tunxis Community College --Georgeryp 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearification

I didn't think that the Clearification campaign was noteworthy enough for its own article, but a brief mention in the Windows Vista article would probably be OK. —tregoweth (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can add one sentence about it in the Vista article if there is any mention of Vista's publicity/advertising there already or if not, maybe Clearification would fit as a brief mention in a general article about viral marketing if one exists... --Georgeryp 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of billionaires

I've semi-protected the article for a week. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like there's two supporters (including me) so far, in favor of a longer protection period - see Talk:List of billionaires (2007) --Georgeryp 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I noted the protection has expired. It doesn't help for us to readd just the template, I am afraid an admin has to actually protect it (nice try though;-)) Greswik 18:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's too bad it requires an admin. Did you ask one to add it? Maybe MZMcBride (above) will do it? --Georgeryp 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask. I guess you should, at the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, if you think it is required.Greswik 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, there was another supporter for longer protection (see article's talk page), I did just that. --Georgeryp 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Crawford

I see you added a reference to Michael David Crawford in the Michael Crawford disambiguation page. I attempted to write an article on him, but it is being heavily debated and anon IPs are vandalizing it. If you happen to have any references to this man or can provide any more info. The article is Michael David Crawford and it is up for AFD right now. Any help you have on Michael would help keep this article. If not, it might be too late because some anonymous IP requested a speedy deletion. --Thomas Hard 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas, unfortunately, I don't have any additional information on Michael Crawford beyond what I've read online (mostly on his own web pages). I've never met him either, but I'll see if I can chime on your article. I watched some of the debate over another article about a person known via the Internet (Casey Serin) but I think the circumstances were very different (Casey blogged about his suspect and voluminous real estate dealings) so it may not be instructive in the case of Mr. Crawford. The "deletion dogs" seem to have retreated from Casey's article after he had a string of appearances in the major media. He also had many "supporters" who were probably really "haterz" who just wanted to expose his dealings. --Georgeryp 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

But you did think he was notable enough to add the link to that page. I was told not to reference other articles for evidence in a debate for deletion of a different article. So I couldn't use the Casey Serin article for debate. There are Haterz of Michael Crawford and they add in things like he attended the Batman school of touching junk, and is a deadbeat, etc into the article which are not true and not verified either and seem to be some Internet Meme or work of fiction. --Thomas Hard 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, someone deleted the entry you posted for me on the Michael Crawford disambiguation page, claiming that I had posted the link in an act of vandalism. MichaelCrawford 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could go back in time and do it over, I wouldn't have included a URL to one of your sites on the "Michael Crawford (disambiguation)" page since it's apparent now that many people here hate anything that could be remotely close to link spam. As for the false accusation about you doing the link spamming there, the record clearly shows here and here that it's false. I think they confused the revert you did between those two edits as an addition by you. All you did there is try to remove some profanity directed towards you and instead you get accused of link spam ... wow, isn't the Internet great?! --Georgeryp 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are correct. The history only shows that Michael reverted a blanking, but he did not add in the original link, which is why you were contacted on your talk page about it. It is not quite link spam, as Michael writes articles to help people out and sometimes other web pages cite them as examples on various topics. I included a lot of links to prove that Michael's web pages are cited as him being experts on those various subjects. I think if Michael had added his knowledge to Wikipedia articles instead of just links, that it would not be seen as link spam by some people. Hopefully this can clear up some misconceptions about Mr. Crawford, and make the article on him more factual and remove any incorrect statements about him. I admit I made a few incorrect statements about him that he objected to, but I changed them to be correct after he verified why they were incorrect. It should be noted that Mr. Crawford is not adding to the article about him, but has been communicating with me and others on talk pages to help us make the article meet Wikiepdia standards to become more factual. --Thomas Hard 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight! But from my quick glance, at this point, your struggle is more about establishing notability rather than absolute correctness. Between the vandals and the AfD zealots (an important distinction), you've had a tough battle. Sorry I can't be of much help. I was going to do a search to see if he ever showed up in any mainstream media but it seems you've already gone down that path. I know you can't reference other AfD cases but I mentioned the Casey case because of what you can learn from it and take "into the battle" so to speak. Unfortunately, it seems, if someone's not heavily referenced elsewhere (even online) or published beyond "self-published", it seems it's hard to meet the threshold of notability. If things don't work out here, you should consider putting the article somewhere else - maybe some place on Wikia or Citizendium? It can live there until something MDC works on (his music, SEO, OggFrog or ?) hits it big enough to easily get re-established here.

Just a nitpick on your comment about him "reverting a blanking", if you're referring to the disabmig. page, he actually did better than that and removed nasty vandalism. Yes, I don't think me adding the URL was literally "link spam" - just that it obviously sets off alarms for some to see the need to expunge it. If you haven't checked out some of the Wikipedia IRC channels, I think there's at least one which has a bot that shows all the urls people are posting all around wikipedia in realtime so people can screen them - which I guess is a mixed blessing. --Georgeryp 00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meta message notification

Happened upon m:User talk:Georgeryp while doing RC patrol on Meta... there's a really nifty feature that will send you an email when you have a new message. Go to your Meta Preferences, and under the "E-mail" heading (very first tab), check the "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" box. No need to swing through just to get a message. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I actually knew about this feature (but forgot about it) although I seem to remember it wasn't in the preferences of *all* Wikipedia projects at the time(?) Also, when I first created most of my wiki accounts, I happened to start getting more spam so out of paranoia I disabled a lot of the system email alerting and user emailing. I guess I'll go back and revert my instructions as long as I can enable system email notification. Thanks for the reminder. --Georgeryp (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it was on by default at one point, but I've only seen it get used on Meta and Commons. Personally, I really wish it were activated on more projects; it'd be extremely handy for my slew of accounts, where checking my messages everywhere is pretty much out of the question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you have so many accounts! I suppose even using the RSS/Atom feeds of all your talk page histories along with a good feed aggregator, would still be awkward to monitor. --Georgeryp (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just too difficult, so I don't bother... thankfully, my editing is usually under the radar enough that nobody bothers to say anything to me (aside from a welcome template that I usually can't read), so the ability to effectively monitor my talk pages is more of a "that'd be nice" thing than a "I must be able to do this!" sort of problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Test Wikipedia

You have new messages. Maximillion Pegasus (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

thanks for the note. As you can see, I'm a newcomer, still getting used to all the mechanics and policies of wikipedia. I very much appreciate your work on the Enfield High School page. (Your revisions and touching up has resulted in a fine job!)

If you have any suggestions or questions regarding anything I've done, please let me know.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywiz (talk • contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)