User talk:Astral/Archive1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Nabla 16:21, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Reverting Undo
Please stop reverting my undo on the COI links. Wikipedia is not authorized to use copyrighted terms. Because of flawed algorithms number of links on wikipedia, Google is master-indexing this COI page and listing it as primary search result. This issue was resolved with senior SysOps, please blank related pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're being tagged by COIbot and looking at the page history does not inspire confidence. I will revert up to the 3 revert rule and I'm sure if you continue, some other editor will also revert you. --Astral (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to wait for an explanation :) Left a 3RR warning too.  Snowolf How can I help? 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for the great work you're doing hunting down vandals this evening :)  Snowolf How can I help? 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good work yourself also, it's nice to be part of a team of people dedicated to removing vandalism :) --Astral (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted a vandalism edit hugely increasing the page. Why did you revert that? I've reverted your revert only because the page it huge right now and hangs my browser. --Catrope (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, sorry, I didn't mean to revert your version but I hit the wrong diff. Please accept my apologies. --Astral (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Catrope (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

test
Fnord. – Gurch 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ZOMG GURCH! --Astral (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Tangerin is vadalising the English Democrats Wikapedia Page

Matt O'Connor is the replacement for Garry Bushell - just do a Google to find out !

67.38.47.128: not vandalism
Hi. This edit by is not vandalism; it's some anon making a good faith reversion of a reversion of the edit he made earlier.

Do you mind reverting your uw-test2 vandalism warning?

Take a look at our "Please do not bite the newcomers" guideline -- we don't want to scare newcomers off but rather reach out to them and coach them where it would be helpful.

Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reviewed and removed, sorry about that. --Astral (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing. There's no need to apologize to me but you may want to follow up your reversion with an apology to the other editor. -- A. B. (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone please help me out here....
I am a technical writer. I posted an article to my Web site which would be helpful to other technical writers. The article is on how to enter the closely related field of patent work. I tried placing a link to the article under the Wikipedia article on tech writing, but twice it was removed (and removed virtually instantaneously -- as if by an automated system or something). I see the guideline about not linking to a site you are affiliated with, but I don't get this -- how about if you've posted something genuinely useful on the Web, there is no way to link to it from Wikipedia? My Web site does partly serve to promote my services, but also has a wealth of helpful information for technical writers and others who work with them. What's the point of this, if there is no way to offer that to people? Plus, under the Wikipedia article on technical writing, I definitely see links to other informational articles which are posted on Web sites similar to mine -- that is, sites that are partly informational, but partly commercial. So, there seems to be some lack of consistency here. Finally, I hope I'm posting in the right place here, because I could not find any clear instructions on how to contact editors. Every time I looked for a link to an e-mail address or discussion page, it just took me to another article about using Wikipedia. So, sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I'm confused. Also, in case I can't follow the link here, a reply to one of my e-mail addresses, steveqdr@yahoo.com, would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveCreativeWriter (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, I appreciate your efforts to help other technical writers but Wikipedia is not the place for self promotion, regardless of how useful you deem the information to be. Websites that care citeable generally tend to be primary sources such as News outlets. If people are looking for articles on the subject, I'm sure they will use their favourite search engine to find your site. I, myself, have written a lot of articles that I think could benefit people in my fields (computer programming and music) but I do not link to them from Wikipedia articles as they are not appropriate. They are, however, linked from appropriate specialist sites, which is where I suggest your article would be better advertised. I hope this explains my decision to revert your edit but if not please feel free to respond here with any other questions you may have. Regards, Astral (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Astra. Thanks for the reply. Okay, follow-up question: Suppose the link is to a .pdf file with the article. The file would still be technically on my site (and would have a URL referring back to my site, directly under the copyright notice), but since Adobe Acrobat always opens in a separate window, you would not have any of the -- I don't know what you call it, but all the stuff that is indicative of my Web site, my site heading, and menus, and bacgground graphics, all that. People would essentially link directly to the .pdf article with the useful info. Yes, they could still follow that to my site if they want, but what they would get, directly from Wikipedia, would be a useful, pertinent, topical article. (And apart from the URL for my site, listed under my copyright, the article has no "promo" material for my services.) Please let me know if that meets with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveCreativeWriter (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, I'm still not sure this would be appropriate although to be honest, I'm heading a bit out of my depth now. A good place to start would be with the list of What Wikipedia is not and maybe discussing your particular case at the Village Pump. My gut feeling is that, as an encyclopedia, your sort of link, whilst it may be very relevant and helpful is frowned upon but I must stress this is just my opinion. As you're also a newly registered user, it might be a good idea to get to grips with Wikipedia a bit first and get some edits under your belt. If you look at the first section of my page, under the heading Welcome!, there are some good links on where to start. I suspect, like me, most editors and RCPers wouldn't think twice about reverting an edit where a newly registered user or a user with very few edits adds what appears to be self-promoting spam to a page. As you seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject of technical writing, perhaps you could develop the article on it, remembering to stick to the principals of an encyclopedia (Neutrality, for example). Helping the article towards Featured Article status would be a good place to start. I hope this is advice is of help and if you have any more questions, do feel free to ask them here or at the Village Pump :) Astral (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello there fellow non-admin rollbacker! I've noticed that you've been using the rollback tool quite a lot lately, and I saw a few cases where a non-automatic summary would have been helpful.

Perhaps you might want to install the script at User:Voyagerfan5761/rollbacksummary.js? The script adds a second rollback link next to any rollback links on a page, and the extra link brings up a prompt for the edit summary instead of using the default rollback summary. I've used it since I got rollback, and it's helped out a lot. Think this would be useful to you? Pyrospirit ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for the message, I thought I'd been using summaries where appropriate and taking advantage of the speed of rollback and using an auto-summary where a detailed explanation wasn't needed (obvious spam or vandalism). I'm new to some of this so if you could point me to a few examples I can learn where I'm making mistakes by not providing a summary. Thanks very much, Astral (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice anything that was really a problem, just an edit or two where a summary might have been helpful. With the script I mentioned, you can use the speed of rollback but still have your own edit summary. Just thought it might be something you'd be interested in. It's certainly sped up my RC patrolling a lot. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'll look into it, thanks :) Astral (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thanks - long may we continue indeed :-D. Yay for IRC + huggle. Martinp23 15:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * You definitely deserve it. Almost 1500 edits in the past ~2 days, and pretty much all vandalism reverts.   jj137  ♠ 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike us normal humans, he has no need for sleep. —Animum (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lies, all lies! Astral (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. Well, I think at some point I should give Huggle a try. :)   jj137  ♠ 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If anti-vandalism is what you're about then I can definately recommend having a look at Huggle. It's still in beta and the people testing it are limited, so I can't guarantee that gurch will give you a copy just yet (he might want to wait till he's finished most of the work on it before handing it out to a lot of people) but there's no harm in asking :) --Astral (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
for reverting vandalism on my talk page :)--Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad I could help --Astral (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gilmore Stadium
You have to give them some credit for amusement, though, for not even trying to disguise it as being something besides spam. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was quite amused when I read your edit summary on my watchlist! Royal broil  03:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do try and keep things lighthearted. Humour is a good way of diffusing situations when people complain about removal of links :) --Astral (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Page of Romania
This is not vandalism, but TRUE, The Sibiu picture is not probleme???????The comment of picture:Saxon City Sibiu, this is not probleme????Kolozsvár was traditional hungarian city, and built hungarians!And this true is vandalism!!!Yes, romanian propagand is very fast!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.225.158.3 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Popperian
Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages. Please refrain from reverting in the future.  Snowolf How can I help? 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He blanked his talk page and at placed this at the top, I don't see this is as appropriate behaviour given that he is currently edit-warring on some COI pages claiming that Wikipedia is not allowed to even mention his "trademarks". My revert stands. --Astral (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing
I am not intentionaly 'vandalising'. I am unaware due to relative newbieness how to do sources and stuff. Proof of the edit i made is only i spoke to witnesses first hand after it first happened and i suppose the Archimedes institute would also be proof and could therefore be qouted as citation. I chose this subject as my first contribution to wikipedia as it is something only a limited number of people would be as aware of as i am. And wanted a simple introduction to the wiki idea. Advice on how to make this contribution legitimate would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PJPIP (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.87.173.219
Is this really vandalism? The edits are a bit POV (especially the first one you reverted), but they do not appear to be at vandalistic in intent to me.--Pharos (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should've tagged them as POV but they seemed to be to be trying to stir up trouble, hence my beliefe they were vandalism. --Astral (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first one was pretty POV, the other ones seem just a little misguided. Especially if you look at the totality of the contributions from this IP (including ones to other articles), it would be better IMO to give a pointer to WP:NPOV than vandalism warnings.  Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Huggle bug
I had the same problem when I first started. You have to wait a few minutes after your incorrect password. Otherwise, when you enter your password wrong you would have to type in the verification code, but since Huggle doesn't use the verification code, you just have to wait a short amount of time before it will let you try again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers
Seeing how you treated User talk:75.11.181.32 and taking a quick look at your talk page gives me the impression that you are going overboard in your anti-vandalism crusade. May I suggest an apology to 75.11.181.32 (assuming it's not too late)? --RenniePet (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * False positive. This edit looked designed to stir up trouble but in hidsight perhaps a POV tage would've been better. I will apologise to the user and explain why I reverted them. --Astral (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --RenniePet (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

zOMG
spam?! Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Spam? In my encyclopedia? *faints* --Asty

Inappropriate?
How can you say an illustration is inappropriate? Maybe I'm not aware of the guidelines on WP English about nudity but the word "inappropriare" is actually inappropriate IMO because the illustrations I added to cybersex and oral stimulation of nipples were perfectly linked to the subjects. Your message states that my edit is "unconstructive": why would an illustration be unconstructive? I actually added two illustrations made by a Dutch artist (Peter Klashorst) so I don't consider that as inappropriate nor unconstructive. I'm waiting for an answer before I reconsider your reverts (that sound unfair to me). Regards. --86.67.47.68 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I take your point about the image on oral stimulation of nipples, I didn't review the page enough and made a bad judgement, please feel free to undo my revert and I shall remove the warning I left on your talk page. With the image on cybersex however, I still feel, as I did when I reverted it, that it adds nothing extra to the article by being there and so I believe on that article, my revert stands. Regards, Astral (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I think I can agree with the cybersex article because I guess the photo might be too explicit. My main concern was about the other article and I'm pleased to see you finally agree with me. So I'll include the picture again and I won't do anything for the cybersex article. Regards. --86.67.47.68 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry again for the reverts but glad we're all sorted now :) --Astral (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wondered something today. Although I quite agree now that the picture added to cybersex might be inappropriate because too explicit (that doesn't bother me but I understand that can be shocking to others), I remembered something in your message above: "it adds nothing extra to the article by being there". Which led me to this question: do the pictures already in this article bring something constructive? I mean, isn't the link between cybersex and a picture of a webcam and a keyboard a lot less appropriate than the Klashorst's photo? Actually I've just realized someone reverted your revert with that statement: "rv to picture - this is the best attempt so far to actually illustrate the subject of the ariticle". I guess Simonxag agrees with what I just wrote. I hope you'll understand. Regards. --86.67.47.68 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure the article needs any pictures to be honest and I'll leave a note on the talk page to say so. If you believe the other images are less appropriate, be bold and remove them! Regards, Astral (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting undo
A minor change had been made to the Pic language page but was, with the comment "the recent edit you made to Pic language has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive."

With respect, this is incorrect. The one significant change was to delete the sentence "Although it isn't the best form of programming there are many 12th party software companies out there that sell cheap copies of actual better versions" precisely because it was unconstructive: "it isn't the best form of programming" does not provide any criteria for the opinion expressed or the authority behind the opinion; unclear: "12th party" has no common meaning; false (unless at least one reference is provided): there certainly are not "many" companies selling pic interpreters; the mention of even one such company would be of interest.

The minor edit did three things: 1. Add information about the audience for which the language had been designed. 2. Added brief detail of what the language does. 3. Added a more precise description of where processors may be obtained.

I have undone the undoing, and added a reference.


 * Hi there, I reverted based on the sentence "The language is an example of a little language originally intended for the comfort of non-programmers in the Unix environment." which seemed to me to be derogatory (although it may just be that I read it wrong) so please accept my apologies for the bad revert. I will remove the warning from your talk page. --Astral (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relist tool?
This contains most of "my" "creative" insight. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam makes baby Jesus cry?
What kind of edit summary is that? What about the people who don't believe in Jesus or just want to know why an article they watch has been edited? IrishLass (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was reverting spam. I don't really need to put an edit summary other than what's being reverted but "rv spam" can be a little dull at times. Jokes help keep things light-hearted and stop us all becoming policy wonks. "X makes baby Jesus cry!" is an old joke and really not meant to offend anyone at all. Astral (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Beating me on Reverting
Hi,

Good work beating me on all the vandal reverting so far, I have only just started today and you already seem to be beating me!

Keep up the good work! :)

Thehelpfulone

-- The Helpful One (Talk)(Contribs) (Review) 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks. Reverting vandals is a fun hobby :D Astral (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Information Age was not vandalism
The major edits/culling on Information Age is not vandalism. The article is terrible and somebody finally decided to cut it down to the minimum and start it over. I support this action. --Johnm4 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Large amounts of the article were removed with no edit summary. It sure as hell looked like vandalism to me. Astral (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it looked that way. See the page's discussion anyway. --Johnm4 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added to the talk page explaining why both me and the bot reverted the edit and how to avoid that next time (register and/or add a detailed edit summary pointing to the talk page). Astral (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reinserting the prod notice on Camp Raymond (BSA)
Hi Astral -- I noticed that you reinstated the prod notice on Camp Raymond (BSA), after the article creator had removed it. This is against procedure -- if anyone, even the article creator, contests a prod, even for what appears to be a spurious reason, the matter has to proceed to an AfD discussion. Accordingly, I've started one for this article at: Articles for deletion/Camp Raymond (BSA). Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I think I was quite tired as I assumed she'd removed an AFD notice, hence the reinstatement. Astral (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wondered if that was where the confusion arose. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

.
you reverted vandalism on Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds faster than i could -- A dam1213 Talk 07:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, cheers. I'm getting in a bit of vandalfighting before class :D Astral (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)