User talk:Casper2k3/Archive 2

Your Opinion?
Greetings. I'm sorry to be bothering you with this again, but user CovenantD continues to be "obstructive". My wiki skills have improved considerably and as a result I now retain and often include links, headers etc. when editing information. CovenantD, however, continues to be obstinate and maintains a "my way or the highway" approach to this and automatically reverts articles back to their original state, even if the writing etc. was questionable and needed work. A good example is the comicbook character the Wrecker. I found a cover featuring his first appearance (surely a bonus for new readers) and tidied up the information, which is all still there but in a more succinct form. Despite this, CovenantD automatically reverts the article back to it's former state. What was the point of this? From what I understand of wikipedia, this is a kind of vandalism.

I have also made comments as to why I have made changes on several characters' Talk pages (eg. Thor), but these are completely ignored. What comments I do receive amount to ridicule, with an example being the Absorbing Man - in the Edit History, ConvenantD writes "As long as that silly list appears, it gets reverted." Is this a mature response? From what I understand of wikipedia, no one owns these boards and the goal is to work together to improve the articles. At present, I do not believe CovenantD is acting in the best interests of the wikipedia community and only seems interested in pushing his own agenda.

For your consideration

Asgardian 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper
You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I'm not really sure how to interpret the vandalism. Just plain weird. Oh, well. =) Thanks again. -- Gogo Dodo 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oy, another one of my fans found me. I see he was rather rude to you, too.  Thanks again. -- Gogo Dodo 04:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi
That vandalism you reverted on my userpage was me, but I hadn't logged in. Oh well. Thanks for the help tho. :-) And very quick reverting too. You deserve a WikiCookie. David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Let us to it, Pell-Mell 12:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:IanManka/Calculus
Yeah, I forgot to log in. Thanks for reverting anyways. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Did you even read what I wrote? You people are unbelievable. geez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.159.184 (talk • contribs)

RE: help
I'm just wondering if and how i could artact other contributors to a certain arble over wikipedia?RockerballAustralia 07:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what the answer to that is! I've posted your question at the Wikipedia Help Desk where you should get an answer pretty quickly! (Sorry for the late reply by the way.) --Casper2k3 09:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why subst templates at WP:UTTM?
Regarding this edit, why does this need to be subst'd? It allows for inaccuracies if the template is changed.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Did that without thinking. Saw the huge red message saying it needed to be subst'd and thought "I can fix that!". Anyway I've reverted it. --Casper2k3 15:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, in that case it may make sense to have it subst'd. Most templates I've seen show some text along with the warning about substitution, but that one is totally useless to see without substitution. I didn't realise how it looked before. Of course in the long run, I don't think it matters much. Users can click the link to see that one, or it can be substed with a disclaimer about being out of date due to substitution sort of like what I say here. I'll let you decide whether you want to re-subst it and if you want to leave a note about that if you do, I'm not sure which would be best.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a good idea putting an out of date disclaimer on it.
 * I'm gonna have a look at m:Help:Substitution tommorow to see if there's any way it can be fixed first (Can't read it now - been a late night and it's making absolutely no sense!).
 * If not, I'll post a message on the WP:UTTM talk page with your suggestion on it. The red message has been annoying me for a few weeks now! --Casper2k3 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
You reverted a blank of Talk:SOAP by me yesterday. It was accidental and I apologise. Rossheth 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. We all make mistakes :-) --Casper2k3 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not even sure how I did it, to be honest :-) Rossheth 18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar. I'm honored. =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry I forgot to post question...
Hi,

two pages I have been working on--Menstrual extraction and Jesse Reklaw are missing things as though they had been unintentionally blanked after edits I made (section headers, references, external links..) the blanked things seem to be in the article when I edit--but they just don't show up? I can't figure out how to fix this. Tks Cindery 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see what you mean - the Jesse Reklaw has gone a bit 'wonky'! I'm having a look-see through the article now to see where the problem might be.
 * At first glance Menstrual extraction seems to be ok. What things are missing from that one? --Casper2k3 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping. Menstrual extraction is completely missing a section called "Use after legalisation of abortion," and a New York Times citation... Cindery 16:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One down, one to go! The problem with Jesse Reklaw was you didn't complete the last reference in the article. I removed from the page and it's working fine. Have a look here to see how I fixed it. Gonna have a look at the Menstrual extraction article now. --Casper2k3 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you! (I don't understand why ref name="yale" doesn't work to cite a ref the second time it's used, though--isn't that how it's supposed to be when the same ref is used twice? Is there another way I am supposed to do it??) Cindery 16:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was the same problem with that article! I removed and from it and the page is showing up fine (link to edit).
 * I'm not a huge article editor, I'm normally trying to get rid of vandalism on Wikipedia so I don't know too much about references. The info page about references is at WP:REF - but I can't see anything there about what to do when your using the same ref twice. The best place to ask is at the help desk. Sorry I can't be of more help. --Casper2k3 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks so much--you were awesome/you are my hero! i will go ask a citation-marker-upper what i am doing wrong so i don't make this mistake again...(i never would've suspected that one screwy citation could blank out so much info...) Cindery 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Stop vandalising"???
Dear Matthew,

It would seem to me that your personal criterion of what is considered to be acceptable content for Wikipedia is arbitrary and subjective at best, and does not reflect a fair and balanced representation of relevant fact. I would like to know what exactly what it is that I added that you deemed to be "vandalism"? I did not state anything that I cannnot factually substantiate. It is widely known that humorists and satirists in the mainstream media frequenty joke that Ann Coulter is masculine in appearance. These types of jokes are heard daily on American AM talk radio and television, as well on countless Internet sites.

I notice that the article in question includes insulting, controversial, and highly publicized ad hominen comments that Ann Coulter has made about numerous other people, however you have not chosen to censor those. How can you possibly justify censoring me for writing a factual account of things that prominent public figures have publicly stated about Ann Coulter??

Would you also apply the same standard to any other Wikiedia reference regarding any other individual that has been the target of comedians and satirists? You better go get to work. You better start erasing the entries and chastizing anybody who has ever written about a factual account where another individual has been made fun of on Saturday Night Live.

And now, you're red flagging me in my future entries and asking me to use the "sandbox for my experiments" as a result? What a preposterous farce!

I would appreciate a response, please.

Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.200.21 (talk • contribs)
 * Dear Daniel, I sincerely apologise for reverting your edit and giving you a warning on your user talk page. After doing a bit of searching on google, I can see that your edit was not vandalism and I was mistaken in reverting it. Let me just explain what happened. I'm a recent changes patroller. Recent changes patrollers keep an eye on all the recent changes by going through the edits on Special:Recentchanges and reverting vandalism when they see it and giving the user a warning based on what warnings the users already had and the severity of the vandalism.
 * When I looked at your edit, I immiediately thought vandalism because of what you added about "Man Coulter" and "the appearence of an Adam's Apple". I then reverted your edit and gave you a Template:Test warning as there were no other warnings listed on your user talk page.
 * I've removed the warning from your user talk page. Again, really do apologise and hope I haven't "turned you off" from editing future articles.
 * Also, the majority of vandalism comes from IP addresses that haven't registered an account. I strongly recommend that you register an account. I think I'm right in saying that a lot of recent changes patrollers don't bother checking the edits of logged-in users because they're less likely to vandalise. There's a lot of other benefits to creating an account as well. --Casper2k3 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Matthew,

Thank you very much for your feedback and clarification. I will register an account from here on out.

Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.200.21 (talk • contribs)

Hello Matthew,

I am learning more about this process as time goes on. It seems that certain people find my contribution to Ann Coulter's Wikipedia article to be particularly disagreeable and therefore they have taken it upon themselves to instantly delete the information repetedly just moments after I repost it. Before I learned the term "edit war" was and the Wikipedia policies relating to it,I found myself engaging in one. Everything I posted about Ann Coulter is substantiated by fact. The next question then becomes whether or not the facts I contributed are relevent to include. It is relevant to include, and I will explain why in a moment. But I would like to note how remarkable it is that fans of a political commentator that routinely says offensive, outrageous, and egregious things (presumably for the sake of shock value to attract publicity) in a very public manner would have legions of dutiful Wikipedia users seeking to censor anything said about her that they feel is negative based merely on subjective standards.

Is there anyone moderating Wikipedia who has the final say in matters such as these? If I can validate, prove, and provide indisuptable factual refernces for the the information I wish to contribute about a highly public and controversial public figure such as Ann Coulter, is there any protection available to my edit? Or, should I just expect that fans of hers will maintain a constant vigil and instantly eradicate what they do not like because there is really nothing to stop them from doing so?

The reason I feel so strongly about this is because I have edited Wikipedia articles many times, and this is the only thing that has been reverted. The tactics that Ann Coulter uses to savagely attack others and launch highly inflamatory remarks at so many people is a major reason that she receives so much media attention and has a platform from which to convey her radical agenda. The things that other oposing national media figures say in response to Coulter is therefore just as relevant as what Ann Coulter says.

For a Wikipedia user to randomly post an random inflamatory remark about Ann Coulter is quite different from quoting a statement made by another famous political pundit in a very public ongoing exchange in a highly publicized forum. It is indeed relevant. It is indeed a verifiable fact. For Ann Coulter supporters to censor out the parts they do not like does not allow a balanced representation of legitimate and relevant material to apear on the subject for all to freely access.

Can you please help me with this, Matthew? Can you help me find a way to make a legitimate contribution regarding this particular matter that is represented by a carefully constructed edit; one that is factually air-tight and well-referenced resources that passes the mustard test and isn't suseptible to random illegitimate deletions due to the fragile sensitivities of people who admire a political pundit who has stated (among other reprehensible things) that 9/11 widows are enjoyng their husbands' deaths and ought to shut up and pose for Playboy magazine?

Although it may seem rather petty for me to take such a special interest in this issue, it has now become a matter of principle for me regarding censorship. If only Ann Coulter were censored by her publishers in the same manner and held to the same high standards required of Wikipedia contributers. If that were the case, virtually no one would even know who Ann Coulter is, there would be no Ann Coulter article on Wikipedia, and the majorty of Coulter's statements on any given topic would be deleted as a Wikipedia entry, and rightfully so.

I would like to contribute to Wikipedia much more in the future. I think it is a marvelous concept. For what it is worth, I hold a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy and a doctorate in biological sciences. I am confident in my critical thinking and writing skills, and feel that I have something of value to offer Wikipedia on a range of topics. I use Wikipedia often as a starting point to do research, knowing that it is not academically acceptable to use Wikipedia as a terminal referenced source. However, Wikipedia is great starting point to easily find and obtain useful information to be utilized after more solid verification via more orthodox scholarly means. I find the wealth of information on such a broad spectrum of topics contained in Wikipedia to be unprecedented. It is almost hard to imagine a time when I did not once have such easy access to so much well-organized and well-sourced information. I agree that such a project requires high standards for content along with a pragmatic and objective system for which to enforce those standards. But those protections also need to include a way to safeguard relevant and documented facts that may be unpopular. I am completely open to objective criticism seeking to fine tune my edits, but not carte blanche censorship by those biased individuals who find the information unsavory. Why should Ann Coulter, who is an infamously prolific world-class purveyor of such repugnant material be beyond reproach only on Wikipedia due to the relentless efforts of her deciples? It would be major disservice to the fundamental goals and purposes of Wikipedia if all of its users made a habit of deleting facts they were uncomfortable with. I'm sure Wikipedia has a well thought out method of dealing with matters such as this. I just need some assistance.

Thank you for your time. Daniel

Hmmm
this is an open computer, maybe you should block it from editing since im not the only one that uses it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.134.54.253 (talk • contribs)
 * Continued vandalism will result in a block. --Casper2k3 14:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazism semi-protection
Hi, I thought that CAT:SEMI listing of semiprotected pages was automatic, but you seem to imply not in your recent revert of semiprotect on Nazism, does it lapse off or get over-ruled or something, or was this your choice? Thanks. MarkThomas 17:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding sprotected or protected to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article such as the notice you placed in this edit. If you need help protecting a page, please contact an admin or request it. --Casper2k3 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazism
Hi Casper, there was a lot of demand for a sp of nazism. Please leave it sp, they are vandalizing it by the hour - as you can tell from the fame of the topic. I do not know why it was not listed in the category as it should, maybe the update takes a while, but that is a technical problem: categories are self-referential. Thank you, Flammingo 17:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see here and here. A non-admin added the sprotected tag to the article in this edit. This didn't actually protect the page, it only added the protection banner to the top of the page. If you want to request page protection for the page you can request it. --Casper2k3 18:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Casper2k3! 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. Prodego talk  01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

peel regional police
Dear Sir,

The Peel Regional Police page is being attacked again.

Please lock the page to known users.

Thank You, Mike

Welcome
Why did you welcome me?Decboy 15:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Absorbing Man
Casper

greetings. I've actually touched base with Xezbeth re: this. All the links (an accident) have been replaced and I now keep them in with all edits. The point of contention is that a particular user - CovenantD - objects to the cosmetic changes, which are in fact an improvement. Surely the comic cover featuring the character's first appearance is preferable to a blacked out and partial image of the character? While I have also rewritten some of the information due to the bad grammar and poor use of tenses, the chronology remains consistent. I have also added a section - with references - that describes the character's various transformations. This too would be of enormous benefit to a new reader. I suspect CovenantD feels threatened given the subject choice, but this should not be the case. Improvement of the articles can only benefit everyone.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Asgardian 10:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: have extended an olive branch.

Regards

Asgardian 10:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Casper: please see this users talk page and lengthy discussions on the Thor talk page. Asgardian has been told by many people that his edits are POV, remove information, do not conform to the Comics Project guidelines and often conflict with the MoS. Even when all I do is correct links and remove POV info, he reverts. Significant appearances, his first set of edits to multiple articles, was quickly reverted by many other editors as POV yet he insisted on including them. He removed formatting, categories, and entire sections only to replace them his opinions on how ironic or staggering some other event was. He is degrading the quality of the articles in question. CovenantD 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sry!
I was doing a school Project about South africa And i tought that It was more than 2,9 millions people there now. Since that info was a little old.............

Help
How do you sign and unsigned contribution?

Can a user change their Username after they have signed up for Wikipidia?

-- aLEX :)