User:Fvw/TalkArchive/6

New Messages that I don't understand
I have no clue if I am responding in the right place. When I went to the wiki site it said I had new messages, and they were about my vandalizing your info, with a link to your page. Since I am new to this whole thing and have never entered anything - why is this happening? And no one else has access to my computer as I am a 50+ woman whose only child is also barely computer literate and currently doing study abroad in Spain. Ja Young at jmytd @ yahoo.com


 * Nothing to worry about, because of technical issues, Wikipedia cannot always distinguish different AOL users, which means you sometimes get messages intended for someone else. Just ignore the orange new message banner, and if it's annoying you can register an account (which is free and takes just a few seconds), which will give you your own private talk page so all messages you receive are intended for you. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Welcome to Wikipedia! --fvw *  11:46, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Vandal
only beat him down for a half and hour--Boothy443 11:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CSD
No meaningful content or history. --Boothy443 12:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please (re)read WP:CSD carefully. No meaningful content or history (e.g. random characters). See patent nonsense. This article had two paragraphs of proper english with only the odd typo. --fvw *  12:12, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * yeah but it only sites it as an example not as cannon, so it leaves it to the interpertertation of users, thus a broad range of interpertations. Anyway it is stuff like that page that voilates the idea that "wikpedia is not an information emporium' or something like that that i have seen quoted thousands of time, and the time that it sits on vfd, since many dont make it to the board, only as i see it, encourages more people to post non relevant articles on here, but what do i know anyway. --Boothy443 12:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP:RfD
Did you mean to delete your comment on Vector Space? Noel (talk) 12:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, must have edit-conflicted myself and not payed attention. Thanks! --fvw *  12:18, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

block message on user page
Putting a message on indefinitely blocked usernames is a good idea, I'll try and remember that next time, thanks. --fvw *  12:27, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * You beat me to blocking him by a few minuttes, so I thought I might do a little good there instead :). You might also want to use in the edit summery next time as per blocking policy, though nobody could be in doubt why he was blocked. Thue | talk 14:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Too many pages on watch list
Thank you, you were beginning to make us grumpy reply-on-my-talkpage-or-I-won't-see-it-ers look bad. Glad that got solved. --fvw *  16:50, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after a spate of image tagging over the weekend it's at 984. I'll have to come up with some other way to make you look bad now.  By the way, it's cheating to serve two balls at once. dbenbenn | talk 18:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What, you've never played doubles? :-p. --fvw *  08:14, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Germaine Greer
Hi Fvw, just to let you know that I have the first draft of Germaine Greer completed, and it's now just a question of filling it out a little over time, bit of copy editing, and so on. Best, SlimVirgin 07:23, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hey jealousy
The difficulty with this one is that while it had a strong consensus in favour of deletion, many of those votes were because on it containing copyrighted lyrics. By the time I got to it those lyrics had been removed, and there is no certainty consensus in favour of deletion exists for the lyricless article. If you still feel the article should be deleted the best option is to relist it on VfD. Alternatively feel free to merge and redirect it somewhere. - SimonP 17:09, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your problem, but please don't just take as "voted for keep". ReVfD it or at least message the nominator. Apart from that, great work on cleaning up VfD ofcourse. --fvw *  17:13, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Page move vandal
Congrats to everyone who blocked by the way, nobody miscapitalised! :-)
 * You must have felt caught in the crossfire - I count 7 blocks :). Thue | talk 21:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox talk page
The Sandbox talk page was moved to Watch Out! by User Notransistory. That's why u can't just revert, it was moved. In order to restore it the redirect page must be deleted and the sandbox moved back (check the history of the Watchout article). I didn't delete it myself because I don't like unilaterally deleting files. I want to have someone elses input on deletions (there was a vote similar to this on the exapnd SD page I believe). I suppose deleting it myself though would have worked out fine. Also the delete page wasn't laoding write, everything has been quite fritzy. BrokenSegue 22:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A little help on the word Slubbing...
Like I posted on the "votes for deletion" page:
 * Keep but rewrite. Slubbing is a word --sp00n17 01:35, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Now, the only things I can find about the word "slub" and "slubbing" are from websters copyright 1913. Care to take this one over? I'm not bold enough to enter copyrighted stuff, albeit outdated copyrights. --sp00n17 01:41, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

This was on the votes for deletion page too (it exists according to him) --sp00n17 01:44, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. According to Merriam-Webster, "slub" is a transitive verb meaning "to draw out and twist (as slivers of wool) slightly". It also lists the noun "slubbing" as a synonym for "roving". Needless to say, this article has nothing to do with either.JRM 01:03, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


 * Yeah, googling returned slubbing is a word, but that doesn't mean we need to write an article on it now. Actually, I don't think I could say anything encylopaedic about it anyway (dictdefs go on wiktionary). The current article should be deleted, it is not a useful basis for any article that perhaps should be created in that place in future, so whether or not someone wants to rewrite it, this article should be deleted. --fvw *  01:46, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


 * True, as it is now, it should be deleted.  I guess Slubbing may return whenever somebody wants to add it in I suppose --sp00n17 01:49, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

The milan decree(s)
I cleaned up the The Milan Decrees article, but I have a question. Since Napoleon issued just one decree in Milan shouldn't the title of the article be, The Milan Decree? *Kat* 03:19, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on the era, but yes, that would make sense. These names don't always make sense of course, but google does seem to agree with you too, so I think moving the page is in order. Nice job on the cleanup by the way, thanks! --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 03:40, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


 * Thanks!*Kat*

Opeth
Um, you protected the version that says "Pornography" instead of "Videography." -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 03:42, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Aww shucks. Still, now that it's protected I'd rather be very careful about consensus editing, I'd rather not edit anything protected without a clear mandate up front, I've proposed it on the talk page and will change it as soon as the consensus for changing it has been at least hinted at. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 05:09, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy
All the "information" you refer to is in the first paragraph, please read before reverting otherwise you too will be blocked once again. Ollieplatt 06:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia says about External Links
These are the Wikipedia guidlines for external links:

avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article.

These are the guidelines. If a link is within the guidelines, they should stay.
 * Nonsense, it's a non-exhaustive list of types of links not to include; It also doesn't forbid links that have no relation whatsoever to the article topic. That doesn't mean they should be left in articles. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 15:20, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

My opinion is as valid as yours. The links are back up.

Signpost
I changed the article slightly (adding one word, actually) to try and tone down that implication. I didn't want to get too far into the details, as I think those fall below the news interest level of the story, and I also want to respect a certain amount of privacy and confidentiality in the mediation process.

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with you mediating informally, even if you're turned down for official mediator status, although since Andre's case is a formal mediation request I can see deferring to the real Mediation Committee on that one. To my mind, in fact, attempts at informal mediation and how the person handles them would be the best way to evaluate candidates for the Mediation Committee. --Michael Snow 17:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

King Ho CHEUNG
Just thought you might like to know in case you missed it that User:kinghocheung has recreated this page despite your advice. Indrian 22:50, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Oh well, you win some you lose some, looks like the original VfD is still up and running so we can just keep using that. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 23:00, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Some minor questions
I have a few minor questions that id like to ask-
 * Great, I love answering questions, especially when people ask me questions that allow me to extol the virtues of my current finely-crafted wikipedia-editing and general computer setup.

How can i help with vandalism cleanup? Iv been tracking via the contributions page of a few pesky annons, but usually anothermember takes care of it first before i even notice
 * There are two main ways of seeking out vandalism, your watchlist and Recent Changes. If you turn on "Add pages you edit to your watchlist" in your preferences, you watchlist will grow pretty quickly and a lot of vandalism will reveal itsself just by turning up in your watchlist. If nothing interesting's turning up on your watchlist and you want to go vandal hunting, head over to WP:RC and look at random changes or changes to pages which you think are high-risk targets for vandalism. Also useful for this are Special:Contributions/newbies which lists all edits by newly registered users, and Special:Newpages which lists all newly created pages. See also: How to spot vandalism.

that leads to my seccond queston, how can i be more time- efficent on wikipedia? i reserch and doublecheck my new pages that i start extensivly (not so with comments to other users) and avarage a sad 1 page a day when im online and 2 major edits a day - do you have any recomondations or advice for me so i can speed up the process because i have a huge backlog of stuff i want to edit that is impossible to fufill at my current speed. Thanks, Fledgeling 23:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Especially with the current server problems, tabbed browsing is essential. My personal browser of choice is Opera, but Firefox also has excellent tabbign support. Just open a lot of pages in parallel, work in one page and as soon as you find yourself waiting for the server, switch to a different tab. This takes a little getting used to as you have to remember what you were trying to do on all the different pages, but it's well worth the effort. Another method of speeding up your editing (and this really goes for any GUI use): Use the keyboard whenever possible, you can work much faster with the keyboard than the mouse.


 * My apologies for barging into the middle of your conversation, but I wanted to make two comments apropos to the above paragraph. First, Safari supports tabbed browsing too (ObMacHype).  Second, I think it would be cool if the VfD template, in addition to having a link to the article's VfD discussion section, also had a link to go directly to editing that section.  It would save one intermediate page load.  I'm not sure where the right place is to make that suggestion, but I figured you might know. --RoySmith 00:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (PS, if you reply here, I'll see it).
 * Barging is appreciated, I do it frequently to others and if you do it too I can claim it's common practice ;-). Yes, there are quite a few browsers that do tabbed browsing (there's even programs that make IE do it I gather). I just chose ones that had the best chance of being appropriate for Fledgeling (I don't know what OS he runs). The VfD suggestion does sound handy for us nominators, though I'm not sure if it's worth the extra clutter on the template for all those people who just read it. The appropriate place for discussing this would be Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion (or Template talk:vfd, but nobody ever goes there so you'll get a much smaller audience. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:49, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)


 * Last but not least, for RC patrolling there's Live Recent Changes, which gives you a live scrolling list of recent changes; especially useful with the current server slowness. I'm not very fond of the javascript interface and am writing a small application that displays recent changes complete with automated risk-of-vandalism marking and such, but that's not release-ready by a long shot yet (development is very slow if every time you run the program to test a new feature or bugfix you get to see the list of recent changes and find all sorts of interesting edits you have to read and comment on). --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 23:51, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

3RR violations
It is brought to your attention that Robert Blair (aka 207.69.13*.*) has violated the rules of Wikipedia in the following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gliding_action&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_male_circumcision&action=history

- Robert the Bruce 02:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The lack of response to breaches of Wikipedia policy is noted for the record. - Robert the Bruce 03:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Time to ban/block 204.193.6.90?
He is now engaged in personal attacks, asking if "Did he go against an arbritrttion?" . Between this and his violation of the 3RR, it may be time for him to discover that Wikipedia does not live by the rule of "do whatever you want and no one can stop you". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that counts as a personal attack really; just ignore that kind of stuff. Interestingly enough, he hasn't violated the 3RR yet (though I was fooled into thinking so too), see the discussion on WP:AN. Just revert him where necessary and block when he does violate the 3RR, that should get the message across soon enough. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 17:55, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

My talk page
Thanks for reverting it, but I'd prefer if you'd leave it alone unless it's obvious vandalism - in this case, you got to it before I could even read what had been written. Thanks! Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry. I generally stay away from talk pages but when known vandals spout nonsense or worse I generally just blanket-revert. Your wishes are noted though, I'll avoid reverting your talk page in future. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 03:09, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

RE: J.W. McConnell
 * Rather than slapping a "NPOV" notice on articles created by people whose User page shows substantial and detailed contributions and a clear history of POV writing, it is probably better to show that type of contributor a little courtesy and at a minimum put some explanation on the discussion page. Thank you. JillandJack 19:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for setting Antaeus Feldspar straight.
Thank you for setting Antaeus Feldspar straight.

Thank You
Thanks for restoring my edit.

Potatoeman57

Vandalism
Hi, Frank - just so you know, and you may, or you may not, and either way, you may want to brag about it, your user page has now been vandalised 18 times in 16 days! I wanted to congratulate you on your wonderful feat of being hated so much! As Neutrality says, you must have done something worthwhile. Long may it continue. Smoddy | &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; 23:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Fvw has a very unfortunate style which serves to escalate matters. Sad. Not good for Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 19:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair use question
To clarify fair use of Image:Mesa-thumb-lg-3.jpg, I cheated.:) The site you pointed to gave the Visitor's Bureau as sourcem so I phoned them and clarified that using it is fine. knowing that others will also use it. I'll be emailing Milt with details of how to sign up and upload a more current and higher resultion image. The email and upload should leave things completely unambiguous, when they have happened. Jamesday 23:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Having found that it was from the Convention and Visitors Bureau I'd say that that makes it a PR image and within the general guidance for fair use of press releases and such. It's still clearer to remove the need to wonder, of course.:) Jamesday 23:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 Reverts
The 3 revert rule doesn't apply to vandalism, and he's making deletes without any explanation. I know that the section he's changing is controversial, but he can't just delete it. Also, I left his edits in the article.

Potatoe56

Sorry, but it was Potatoe56 who kept reverting the article back. I've pointed out in the Talk section the reason for my edit. Potatoe56 should have vetted the information that was posted to the article in the Talk section and let the users come to an agreement on what should be posted to the article. Firstlensman 00:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt
Hi Frank,

I see you've met Olliepratt. Thanks for your support.

Davenbelle 00:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Talk page
You're absolutely right, I hadn't even noticed. I followed the link on the user's signature, and so didn't even consider that it might not be correct. Feel free to delete the page (I've just tagged it), and I'll copy my edits over and inform the user that his link is incorrect. Thanks! &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 01:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tor proxies
Hi. I noticed you blocked a lot of IPs, calling them "Tor outproxies" - where do you get this information? I'd like it for future reference, since I'd guess these are at the root of the recent vandalism to Jesus, Judaism, Pantera et al. Thanks! Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 05:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My current method is a little more ad hoc than I'd like, it involves finding a dirserver (which is a server that produces a list of available Tor nodes) which lists the host, and checking the ExitPolicy listed there. Luckily this isn't as much effort as it sounds as the dirservers serve up plain text and many are indexed by google. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 17:40, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is getting to be a major pain, I'm going to preemptively block all the tor outproxies that do port 80 I can find. Please hold off any short-term blocks for the judaism vandals as they'll supercede the indefinite blocks I'm going to slap on them. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 20:12, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * There, that should be the bulk of them, any new ones can be blocked as they start vandalising I think. The real solution is to have tor not allow POST requests by default I think, or some other form of opt-out for hosts it contacts. I'm drafting an email to the Tor mailinglist suggest doing some filtering on HTTP requests, but I don't have high hopes for it happen soon. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 21:32, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

user subspace
Thanks :) Wyss 05:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Test
For various reasons subst:test is perfered to test mostly beacuse it is less confusing for new users when they edit the page.Geni 19:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm aware of the discussion, but personally I prefer making it obvious that it's a standardised message which costs very little effort to give, in the hopes that this will make clear a) that people putting stupid stuff in articles is a very common occurrence and that (as they can see) they don't stick around, and b) if they're trying to cost us time and effort on purpose, that they're costing themselves much more time than us. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 19:29, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Ollieplatt
Cool. RickK 21:04, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Banning Tor outproxies
I sent you an email yesterday about this, so sorry for any duplication.

I am running a tor proxy from my IP address User:129.21.147.219. While I am slightly disappointed that Wikipedia is blocking this good service, I understand it, and am not requesting that you remove the ban on my IP. Rather, I would like it if you could please allow my user account Xoder to edit &mdash; even if it is from this IP.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

&mdash; Xoder|&#9990; 21:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * How odd, I didn't receive the email, can't find it in my spam folder either. Do you happen to have the Message-ID handy?
 * Anyway, in response to your request: I'm a big fan of anonymising networks, I used to be involved with freenet and once ran a Tor node. The current system has some problems with abuse limitation though (I was just about the start writing a mail to the or-talk list suggesting better filtering for known protocols on outproxies, suggesting it be made possible (and the default) to disable POST requests on port 80 when I got your talk), and as such it needs to be blocked from posting to wikipedia. If you'll add a <tt>reject 207.142.131.0/255.255.255.0:*</tt> (which will block the proxy from accessing wikipedia) to your config I'll remove the block. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 21:26, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * I used the wikipedia email form thing. I'll be doing that right now. Do you know if I have to restart the tor server to get the new config in?  &mdash; Xoder|&#9990; 21:31, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * A test email via wikipedia just arrived within seconds, so I'm going to stick my head in the sand and assume it was a one-off glitch. I think just sending it the <tt>HUP</tt> signal will do the trick. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 21:36, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have sent the SIGHUP. Consider it done. Mesage me when the ban is undone.  &mdash; Xoder|&#9990; 21:45, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Another link-adder...
I wonder if you'd take a look at 66.234.37.74; he's added external links to five different articles, all links to http://celebritycola.blogspot.com. For obvious reasons, I would rather not be the one this time that raises the issue... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What, you're afraid of making yourself too useful? I Didn't find any of the links to be worth having in the articles and have removed the lot of them. The link reorganising to make it look like it's not just the addition of one link is suspicious too. Good catch. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 02:19, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
 * Well, the amount of trouble our 6th-grader stirred up because he wasn't getting his way wasn't funny to me, especially his trying to find out who hated me and stir them up -- and since I'm not actually an admin, I can't block him if he goes over the line with his antics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- Hey, all six of those links to Celebrity Cola were more than relevant. For instance, with the article on using a possessive apostrophe, Wiki has a link to a one-panel cartoon; while my article actually provided links to multiple books and articles and a long-form analysis of bad possessive apostrophe usage. It might have a somewhat humorous tone, but you were linking to cartoon strips in the same Wiki entry, so I don&#8217;t think the tone is the problem. And it&#8217;s not like I was deleting any of your links so I could replace them with mine own. But I think my article was just as relevant as the two links to comic strips.

And the same, essentially, goes for the filmmaking article and the other pages I added links to &#8211;- you&#8217;ve got links to ancient filmmaking pages and half-functional newsgroups but you can&#8217;t let a couple of links point to relevant, carefully-researched articles on CelebrityCola.blogspot.com? What about my article and list of resource links regarding the vaginal plastic surgery movement? I&#8217;ve even had women&#8217;s groups and lesbian affirmative action websites link to that page in the past. It was a carefully written piece with info not referenced in the Wiki entry, thus it was a quality link for additional info. But you remove it.

And keep in mind, I only linked to six-- only six! out of many -- informative articles on Celebrity Cola, and you think it's suspicious? I've been using Wikipedia for years and years and I've owned multiple websites and this one time -- after all these years and websites -- I decide to add a few links to Wiki and I get slapped down like I'm pulling off a crime. I didn&#8217;t link to any of my rants or political opinions or comics, only to articles written with the same rigor that I use in my daily, professional, paid journalistic writing, the only difference being that I allow a more irreverent tone in my blog writing (and I don&#8217;t have a proofreader working for me, of course. Sniff.). Speaking of which, the MS Word article I linked to is quite unlike any MS Word Mail Merge instructions found elsewhere on the web. I wrote that article based on years of experience working as a listings editor and freelance event coordinator.

ALSO: I didn't begin "reorganising to make it look like it's not just the addition of one link&#8221; -- I was putting the links in a logical ALPHABETICAL ORDER. Which is something you should think about. And my site links back to Wikipedia on every single page, mind you. Thanks a lot for your careful consideration. Now, please remove my IP number from this page that can be seen by the general public. I'm sorry if I've caused you trouble, but I was just trying to help (both the Wiki and, I suppose, myself). If you wish to admonish me personally, you can email me at brachish (at) gmail.com. Thank you.

I am, of course, very disappointed that you found all of my links to be inadequate, and I do have a vague hope that you may change your mind about a couple of them. It would be an honor to be linked within Wiki, because I love the Wikipedia so much. It's a great site, even though this experience has been rather distasteful.


 * I apologise for misconstruing your link-reorganising as bad faith editing. Your wanting to contribute to wikipedia is definitely appreciated, however in general it's best not to link to your own sites as it often tends to look like spamming and more importantly, one is usually not a neutral judge one's own work's quality and relevance.


 * Your IP gets recorded with every edit to wikipedia (have a look at the history tab), as it's the only way wikipedia has to identify you unless you register an account. The IP addresses of registered users are not shown though, so if you take a few seconds to register a username

your can edit without the whole world seeing your IP. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 23:12, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)


 * If you've been "using Wikipedia for years and years" I'm surprised that you didn't realize that your IP address "can be seen by the general public" from the very moment you make a change using that address. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- Listen mates, years ago I actually did contribute to some Wikipedia articles -- some entries on various filmmakers I think, possibly some info on the IRC, I no longer clearly recall, but I was much younger at the time -- but the namby-pamby back-biting internal politics and snide comments like Antaeus Feldspar's above statement of "if you've [really] been using Wikipedia for years" drove me away. (Forgive me, Feldspar, if I'm construing your statement in the wrong way, but this thread has gotten me on edge, and I'm seeing your quote as being sarcastic). I wasn't up to the endless infighting.

I find the vast majority of the content on Wiki to be amazing. It's an incredible resource. And the concept of it being a free, open-source outlet that anyone can contribute to is ideal. I firmly believe that most of the people contributing to Wiki are very intelligent, including the people here that are obviously dead-set against me. I know you're all sharp individuals. A bad egg or grumpy curmudgeon pops up here and there, but mostly it's all top-of-the-line intellectuals. And I acknowledge that all the little ongoing arguments, feuds, and bickering results in quality content, so I suppose it's for the best. But it can also be a nasty, petty environment with too much grandstanding and over-protectiveness that drives away quality contributors and keeps certain pages atrophied of new content.

I know my IP address gets logged when I'm on this site. What I was objecting to was having my IP address on THIS page, where it is being implied that I'm spamming the encyclopedia. (Yes, my suggested external links were for a site I'm editing. But, again, it was only six links to relevant data that were placed on Wiki pages that really did not have a ton informative links of their own.) I just don't like the context of my true current IP resting next nasty spammer accusations on a public forum. But I have no problem with my IP being logged by Wiki in normal contexts.

And I agree, I should have signed in. Fine. I probably have two or three Wikipedia accounts from over the years (if they haven't expired), it's just a matter of remembering the passwords and usernames. I was being lazy. I admit it. But I wasn't trying to pull a fast one. I was too indolent to remember my login details and since I was only adding a few links, and not changing actual content, I didn't consider it to be a big deal. After all, changes by anonymous users are allowed. And logging in wouldn't have made it clearer that I was (or wasn't) the owner of the website in question (it's a relatively new site).

Disclosure: CelebrityCola.blogspot.com is being written under a pseudonym, so if I login in the near future I may need to create a new account unless I'm sure that none of my past usernames give away my true identity. It's nothing exciting -- I'm not trying to be mysterious here, I'm no one important -- but I just want to warn the amateur Wiki detectives that if they notice something in this department, it's not meant to be another devious evasion of Wiki policy. Quite simply put, I'm a NY-based writer/editor, but if I posted rambling gossip columns like the following under my real name, I could loose all of my freelance work, not to mention screening invitations: http://celebritycola.blogspot.com/2004/11/name-droppings-movie-and-screening.html

You see? But I have no hidden agenda. My new website is merely a repository for articles that I haven't (or couldn't, or wouldn't, for various reasons usually having to do with potential conflicts with current employers) sell elsewhere, but that I still think have value. Some journo colleagues have contributed to the articles using real and fake names. Some posts are only works-in-progress, just being developed; some I've been updating frequently. A few are articles I wrote for a magazine that went bankrupt before full distribution, and the rights reverted back to me (I would have written these under my real name, but since I already had this site set up, I figured I'd just use the Brachish name for them as well). I've tried to add as many resource links to my posts as I can, and the articles that I tried to link to on Wiki were all articles that contained info that I knew Wiki didn't have because Wiki was one of the places I tried to research said articles originally (in most cases).

Also note: I've placed all of the site's content under a Creative Commons license. I'm certainly not trying to pull in a lot of cash with this venture, so I have no need to spam or mislead -- it's all about information distribution. So, again, let me assure you, I meant no harm. If I was going to spam this resource I would have reconfigured my firewall to obscure my IP, logged in under a clever new username, and posted hundreds of links back to my site under the guise of a guy with an IP from the other side of the world. Obviously I didn't do that. It was all quite innocent. And, frankly, I think the info I was providing would have been very useful to the pages I chose to post links on. However, since others did not agree, I'm happy to submit to the democratic process and let them be removed. But they should not be removed simply because I'm a spammer (I'm not) or because I'm the owner of the site ("discouraged" from posting links to your own site is not "never"). But, mainly, I don't like the idea that people think I was up to no good.

Now, finally, I also must apologize for this lengthy note and my previous lengthy note. I realize I do go on for far too long. I'm a rambler. For your convenience, I'll now get out of the hair of this message board and go back to being only a faithful user, and not a contributor, to Wikipedia. Dipping my feet back into the Wiki game was obviously a poor choice at this time, and I'm sorry I've caused you trouble. I just don't want anyone thinking ill of my new blog (or me). Also, Frank v Waveren: thank you for being a reasonable presence, as always. I extend my gratitude to you and everyone else at the Wikipedia for taking such good care of this online goldmine. -- Brachish


 * see, I can't say anything on Wikipedia without it being taken as an attack. Maybe I should just leave.  I wasn't doing any good anyhow.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Antaeus Feldspar, I sincerely hope that my comments do not encourage you to leave. I'm sure you're a fine, upstanding bloke, and I'm glad you're watching out for spammers. I just felt a need to defend myself and my website. I hope you understand and do not feel discouraged because of my angst. &#8211; Brachish

TOR proxies
Good job on putting the TOR outproxies in the ban list. I've been worried that would be an attractive way to vandalize WP. I've been a TOR outproxy for a while now, but will be turning it off, not just for WP's sake, but for other reasons of liability. Therefore, I've removed 219.79.211.116 from the block list. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 04:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandals
Thanks. I'm not so clear on how these proxies work yet, and in any event I've got my hands full just blocking the vandals. Would you be able to help out with more permanent blocks until the latest wave of vandalism subsides? Jayjg |  (Talk)  07:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that would be very helpful. Jayjg |  (Talk)  07:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Frank, what is the difference between a proxy and an open proxy? Why should one be blocked and not the other (still learning here)? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  09:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Am I a vandal?
Please explain to me how I am a vandal, as seriously, I am very confused about this. IP user 24.66.94.140

No, I believe it is me that these people are ferering to, I edited the Eichmann atricle and some of the northern league baseball article. In the case of Eichmann, I'm being called a Nazi, which I am disgusted by, and in the other, Shouldn't teams that have won a league championship be linked to their own respective page?


 * Yes they should be. But they already are earlier in the page. You only need to wikify something on a page once. You don't need to do it over and over or you will have a page full of blue links--Djsasso 01:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johnny Carson image vandalism
Might it be a good idea to delete that picture vandalised by Thingery? Doesn't seem respectful, and all that. Or is it important to keep it in while the vandalism is in progress? Phaunt 00:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure about policy on deleting image revisions. Past vandalism of text pages does remain in the history, so I'm erring to the side of caution here. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:44, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * Maybe follow this procedure? I can't do it, since the page is protected. Don't intend to bug you - I'm a wikipedia newbie, really... Phaunt 00:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really apply, that's just for deleting entire images, not just separate revisions. The vandalised revision wasn't used in the creation of the current one, so I guess it can be deleted though, so on second thought I have. Thanks for flagging the matter on ViP! --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 00:57, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * It's still in the revision history, except now clicking it gives a 404 error. Can it be removed from the history? It seems a previous vandalism has been deleted. Or will this happen automagically? Phaunt 01:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GameSpot
But it was so much fun! Well, thanks anyway - they must have mentioned the article on their website or something. I suppose that's to be expected as Wikipedia becomes more popular. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 02:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disabling Proxy Settings
I just wanted to thank you where all wikipedians can see, the site for disabling proxy settings did the trick. As a result of your helpfulness and kindness I'm happy to have this (my 200th edit) on your usertalk page =D

For all those who are wondering what the site was (there seems to be lot of query's here) it's here. Thanks again! [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent <sup style="color:#33CCFF;">&dagger; <sub style="color:#33CCCC;">&isin; ]] 02:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt
Ah, I didn't realize it was several hours ago. Oh well, I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt, but he probably doesn't deserve it anyway. :-) Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
I thought that was more of an admin thing, considering i dont like to give out idle threats. --Boothy443 05:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't think of them as threats, think of them as warnings or suggestions (heck, think of them as zen poetry). If you don't want to you don't have to ofcourse, your contribution of spotting them is welcomed too. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 05:29, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * Yeah by why sit their and say oh please stop or you will be baned, and as many of them do such as this 70.243.36.248 he just keeps on doing, they when he realizes that you have no ability to do anything, just gives them all the more reason to keep on doing what they do. --Boothy443 05:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for undoing his (Rahulnirmal2000's) vandalisms to my pages. I was too busy trying to figure out how to get him banned to do it myself. ;-) -- Khym Chanur 05:35, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, most vandals stop as soon as they see "You have new messages". They know someone's onto them. I think it's only necessary to list someone on VIP if they've made a negative edit more than a few minutes after receiving their first warning. I'm also reluctant to block someone who hasn't been warned, so if I see an entry on VIP with a red talk page, I have to first issue them with a warning, then wait for another edit before I feel justified in taking action.-gadfium 05:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation
Fvw, would you consider blocking User:Herschelkrustofsky for violation of 3RR at Lyndon LaRouche? He is causing chaos on the page, and has been for days, with multiple, complex reverts, using his main account and a second account that the developers have identified as likely being him too. The latest reverts are hard to follow as he uses deceptive edit summaries, but I have isolated the following paragraph for the sake of clarity. (However, this is not the only material he has reverted. He is reverting whole chunks.) A 24-block might calm things down. Otherwise, it's just going to continue tomorrow.


 * "What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non -White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities .For example, LaRouche has written: "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" (Internal memo - Lyndon H. LaRouche, NCLC 1973)."

He has reverted this five times in two hours. Here are the diffs:
 * Herschel deleted this quote at 6:45 Jan 23
 * Again at 02:01 Jan 24
 * Again at 03:07 Jan 24
 * Again at 03:26 Jan 24
 * Again at 03:35 Jan 24
 * Again at 04:05 Jan 24

He was warned he had violated 3RR at 03:56 on the talk page, but did it again anyway at 4:05. SlimVirgin 06:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's pretty bad. Blocked for 24 hours and told to use the talk page. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 06:46, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)