User:Ottawa4ever/Archive 2007-2009

Archive of notes from december 2007-March 2009

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Maxim (talk)  01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

STiki Talkback
-- another response

Re: Quick question...

 * Ah, thanks for the interest in helping to clean up vandalism. Check out the counter-vandalism unit page.  Anyone is free to join.  If you'd like the little button thinggy, they are near the bottom of the page.  You might also be interested in the quick guide to cleaning up vandalism.  Lemme know if you run across any problems or have any questions.  Cheers =)  -- slakr  \ talk / 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: St Thomas
Thanks, that's so kind of you! I appreciate it. It was difficult to remain diplomatic, and it's really cool for someone to recognize that. Again, thank you, for the barnstar, and your input within the situation as well. Cheers! See you around. -- Reaper  X  03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your reform
For a peson who claims to be a former vandal you have certaintly taken some good steps at unduing your past. The way youve handled yourself on st thomas was good. Its about time your recongnized for your recent peaceful edits

Keep up the good work Jgale061 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Language in KFC
Being french canadian i just read your fix to KFc

wow thank you thats so nice, It always upsets me when people are so blatenely biased and use bad tones its not what wikipedia is about, happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

St Thomas, Ontario
Nope, I don't have a source. Let's see if whoever knows her can properly describe when she lived there. If not then the article will manage without one person. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE WARN!
I saw your multiple vandalism reverts on Dragon Tales--and thank you for that--but I went to report the vandal and discovered they didn't have even ONE warning. Without the warnings, admins won't block. PLEASE use the warning templates in cases like this--they make it SO SO SO much easier to get rid of jerks like that IP. Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done and done Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ottawa4ever! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: University of Ottawa (POV)
Hi, I've added my opinion on the talk page. Meant to do it earlier.. but been somewhat busy and lost track of it. Thanks for the reminder. --Buffer v2 (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning
This image is blatantly stolen from the article Edits_Per_Day -- Works for Huggle too.... CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi Ottawa4ever, thank you for the barnstar! I'm thrilled :)))))  Maedin \talk 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Thank you for the barnstar.  Very unexpected.  Ronewirl (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It should actually be updated as the information is a tad behind Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems
Help from a Wikipedia administrator is needed please. There seem to be a couple of differences with the english article on Christopher Cox. 1.) There is a section on short selling that reads like a blog.  Someone has tried to correct this but failed.  2.)  There is a "bot" which inserted the reference es.christopher cox into the main article. The link to the spanish article is not about the American government official. I tried to remove the link yesterday, but the "groucho.bot" returned. The creator of the "groucho.bot" claims the link was automatically generated.

Any ideas? Ronewirl (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting. Im actually not an administrator. It seems to me that the have a bot gone wild. it added the link again after you reverted it. Its also a fairly new bot so the user may not fully know how to operate it effectively yet. the other bot apparently is doing the same thing to other wiki pages as well. you can get more info on bots here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard

As from what i can tell if its very disruptive a block could be possible so you would probably need to get the attention of an admin here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

hope these links help, take care Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I had to report the violation of Wikipedia's 3RR to one of the administrators.  I wish I didn't have to, but the reversions deleted contributions made previously by others who wanted to improve the article, and they were achieving that goal until the revert wars started up again.  Many, many thanks again. Ronewirl (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging and redirection
Sure, no problem. Check out Help:Merging_and_moving_pages. Most are just cut-and-paste, but it can be complex at times so it's helpful to have the help article. It's good that you're thinking of proposing and getting consensus; I'd say that's the first step most of the time. From there, it's a question of what exactly you're doing, and the article will help you with tags and procedures for each. If you're redirecting to a page that already exists as something else, even a redirect page, you'll probably need to request that an admin make the move for you. If you need any more help, just let me know. Hopefully I'll be on often enough to help out further. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Historic Fires
I added the disambiguation link as the search phrase "The Great Fire" currently redirects to List of historic fires. As The Great Fire (novel) is quite significant as a winner of the William Dean Howells Medal perhaps the search phrase "The Great Fire" should link to the novel?--Tbenst (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for getting back, clears that up Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your concern. However, I believe that both my reversions were justified. If the edits to an article are patently constructive, I would typically correct any syntactic or grammatical errors in them myself; however, in the case of 70.49.153.50's edits to Liz White (politician), the article's tone was shifted from being biased in favour of the politician to being biased against her, a change I did not want to endorse; thus, my only option was to revert, not on grounds of the content dispute (which should not be handled using rollback), but to remove the syntactic and grammatical errors which were "clearly unproductive". In the case of 117.195.18.133's insertion of 40 blank lines into Palm wine, you could easily have seen that I did not issue any warnings to the user, but politely asked them to explain the rationale behind their edits and encouraged them to use edit summaries; once they replied, I corrected the issue myself. Of course, if you still feel that my behaviour was "not acceptable", please go ahead and file a complaint against me. Gail (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The 40 lines were there to break the section, I did not know about the function then. Thanks to Gail I know now. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Im a bit confused with what you write, Im not sure I understand fully, you say you rollbacked their edits because you didnt agree with their tone of the article, but then say you used a loop hole that their was a grammatical mistake and which allowed you to use the roll back function to remove it this that way (70.49.153.50's edits to Liz White (politician)) Its fishy this edit. Im not going to make a complaint about this as you seem to be aware that you cant use this feature this way. But I find your use of huggle and the roll back feature a bit `eye brow raising`. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand why you're calling it a loophole, but consider this... If I did nothing, the article would have been left with the syntactic and grammatical errors. If I corrected the errors, I would have been endorsing the new bias which is, in my opinion, worse than the purported original one. I was reluctant to take this to the talk page because, when making controversial changes, the responsibility to gather consensus rests on the editor making the changes, not the editor opposing them (see the WP:BRD essay). Honestly, what would you have done in this situation? Gail (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the solution would have been not to use your roll back feature or automatic scripts. If you disagree with an common edit you revert manually (click on a previous page edit it) and if controversal make a note on the pages talk page, If its vandalism use your roll back feature then slap a tag on their page (though people seem to be complaining of this too, (Im not touching that one even though its falling under biting newcomers). You can throw wiki policies around if you like to make your case, but here you flagged it as vandalism used your roll back feature and slapped a warning on the users talk page, when it was an edit you disagreed with in principal and wasnt vandalism. I dont necesarily buy the fact of this story of yours (I think your trying to cover yourself and not take responsiblility for a mistake). Fighting vandilism isnt just about reverting, its also about helping other new users grow as editors, making suggestions on edits and proposals for pages. You can easily create vandals by biting newcomers and slapping warnings left and right on edits you disagree with so please be careful in the future Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please allow me one correction to your post: I never flagged or labelled the edit as vandalism. I said it was "clearly unproductive" which, given the errors introduced, I still believe it was. WP:ROLLBACK states that rollback can be used "to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism" (note added emphasis). The level 1 warning issued is very conservatively worded ("your edit appears to be unconstructive"), and is intentionally meant to assume good faith ("if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary") and avoid biting newcomers. Finally, I want to point out that I always take any reports of mistakes I might have made seriously, and take full responsibility for ones which are correct (see User talk:Gail for an example of where I was wrong). In this case, I don't believe I made any mistake, but I'm ready to stand corrected if consensus should determine that way. Gail (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Like I said before, I fail to see how your explanation justifies your usage of rollbacking that edit (Maybe Im stuburn, but Ill admit that). If you revisted the page in question about Liz white you would see the editor had and was in the process of perfecting the edit (The last edit was an attempt to fix the citation before you reverted, In fact your reversion was undone afterwards (if you had a problem with pov then why didnt you say anything on the page later or even now still?) however I will note this, grammer mistakes are still intact. I read the liz white page now and no where to me does the edit in fact make it more biased, it is merely updated to reflect the results of the last canadian election held in november or so (how this makes the edit unproductive I question?). Everything in that article is in fact a fact (minus the grammer which can easily be fixed). In fact , the edit did have an edit summary which mentioned paticular issues that the article was suffering from (PoV) it also mentiones you could revert the edit and mentiones reasons against this, which to me suggests an opening of dialogue for the article not of an warning to the user). If we reverted everything with a spelling mistake and warned every user of this especially IPs (potential new comers) we will turn people off wikipedia and create vandals. I am not convinced of your reasoning (Your edit history suggests you merely glanced the edit at the time and reverted, other people are experienced in huggle too, (Can anyone determine POV in 10 seconds?), I stand by what I said before I think you made a mistake, but Ill let your future edits speak for yourself.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't press the issue because, from my experience, POV debates tend to be way too protracted... I believe they should be resolved by editors who have at least some knowledge of the subject. I disagree with several points of your assessment of the situation, but I think I've explained myself enough, so unless you have any further concerns, I'll stop here. Happy editing. Gail (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * which is why you would involve yourself in a POV revert in the first place (Or is it grammatical or vandalism)? You know my position. In the future be careful, Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice
--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)