User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/May 2008

Theoriginof.com
Thanks for the message but I don't add the link in all the articles. I appreciate your work but I am not here to spam. And I am not adding it always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurag online (talk • contribs)


 * I understand and appreciate that you are not adding the link to hundreds of articles, but I still feel it constitutes spam and a conflict of interest.
 * What I would say is that it is refreshing that since I left this message for you, you've actually been helping clean up external links sections (most people just keep spamming and don't listen), and there appears to be at least one persistent spammer who keeps readding one of the links as soon as it is removed     , so I'm sure you can appreciate my frustration when I see that a similar thing has happened with links to theoriginof.com. Not from your username, but from a dynamic IP range. :)
 * So, keep working on your site until it one day becomes so comprehensive, and so well-known, that it offers something completely different to what Wikipedia aims to offer, and becomes the primary reference point for all people looking to find out that kind of information, and people all over the world add it to articles where it is relevant, and noone removes it because they see how good it is, and how it presents something that is something that a featured article would still not plan on including due to scope. Wikipedia will have a valuable external link, and you will be able to provide advanced information to people around the world.
 * And until that point, keep doing what you've been doing ever since my message to you, and you'll earn a lot of respect very quickly. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear frnd thanks for appriciation. I will love to be a regular part here and this is a pomise I never added ad driven links. If I feel the link is good I add it. Abohar and Chandigarh are very known places to me as Abohar is my Home town and Chandigarh is where I am living. I have started working intensivly on Theoriginof so tht someday it will make you feel YES its link have to be there in wiki. :) Waiting for addition in Y! (Anurag Bhateja (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC))


 * I responded to your email. Apology for taking so long, I had things I needed to take care of. Dreaded Walrus t c 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No issues. Thanks again for the appreciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurag online (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bro, in Chandigarh page a dynamic IP is adding a link of a directory link again and again which is ust a piece of junk. What step an be taken? Can we lock it so tht it can be edited only by registered users? (Anurag Bhateja (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC))


 * There are two actions that can be taken. You could go to requests for page protection, and follow the instructions on that page to ask for it to be semi-protected. Or, you could ask for the site/s to be put on the spam blacklist, though for some reason they haven't even bothered to respond to my post there from a week ago, probably because I didn't follow the exact layout they use. So, while it would be good to just get the sites blacklisted and have it done with, I'd have to wish you luck in your endeavour if you went that route... Dreaded Walrus t c 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Block
Please block that Damian guy. He's just a sockpuppet and is harrassing me. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. I'm about to report him now, for his massive vandalism today. Note that I'm not an admin, so I can't do any blocking myself. Dreaded Walrus t c 19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been blocked. I do feel that 24 hours is probably a bit lenient (pretty much his only mainspace edits have been vandalism, which usually warrants an indef block), but just keep an eye on his contributions, and send me a message if he gets back to vandalism after the block. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You undoubtly know already, but he's vandalised. I wish we could have a sort of "Wiki Police" who go to vandal's houses and...um... stop them. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He's indef'd, and the talkpage is protected. I await his onslaught of socks and IP's: he is apparently unaware of autoblock, it appears.   Acroterion  (talk)  22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How come you know he is'nt aware if he can't edit? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.135.194.229

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.168.137.63

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.166.114.163

A few of his socks. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Affirmation
...a good job. See number 26. I've found it to be quite reliable. :) Keep up the great work!  Antandrus  (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it appears I have quite the dedicated admirer! ;) Fck666sewr and Fck6666sewr as sockpuppets of User:Ae6yrgbrgyg. You're right, it does feel like I've must have done something pretty well to earn their ire. ;) Dreaded Walrus t c 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Message from Shadowpower187
SOCK PUPPETS OF SHADOW187 I CANT FIND THAT PAGE ITS VERY IMPORTANT I FIND IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowpower187 (talk • contribs) - moved in all its capital glory from user page by Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. There is no Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shadow187, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shadow187 was deleted. Bear in mind that block evasion is not allowed. Dreaded Walrus t c 18:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) After responding to the user, I notified User:Nakon, who deleted the category mere hours earlier, that Shadowpower187 is most likely a sockpuppet of Shadow187. User was then blocked by Nakon. Dreaded Walrus t c 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. User:70.186.172.75's edits to Silberbauer
Thank you for reporting this. This user's second edit appeared to be vandalism to the template. Now I know that is an actual template. I've rolled back my rollback. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me, btw. :) 70.186.172.75 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Shenmue edit
It was speculation of things currently happening and cited in articles and such; editing for the better is okay of course (I agree it was speculative), but I have to disagree with erasing it all together, just like rumors of celebrities having done something lead to references afterwards in wikipedia because of the impact they had in their biographies (as rumors, even if they were untrue), and right now for Shenmue this is what is going on, and thus should be there; if it never materializes it'll have to be reduced, of course.

I agree it's incomplete, but the magazine game reactor is claiming that the game is coming, a printed magazine no less.

Skies of Arcadia also makes mention of that for example, in the header, that a sequel is rumored, and could be expanded for explaining that the planning stages were done previously, etc etc; should it be erased if it was done? hell no (and in SoA2 case, it was a website! not a printed magazine like this one is), just like the genuine rumor this is, which is completely different from a guy coming out and saying "a friend of a friend of a friend knows a guy who works at sega and he told me"

I request that the section of the article is brought back, or at leat, let someone put it back without taking it off completely; edit it if you want, to make more informative than speculative, but I ask that the information of the likeliness/rumor of a port is included, at least until we know it's not happening. that, or go around erasing the other cases I've stated doing the same thing (skies of arcadia for example)

I also disagree with crystal ball statement since no one was saying it was coming for sure, only saying there are rumors for it. (just like skies of arcadia page doesn't say soa2 is coming)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.11.19 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Ripe
Generally, Ripe's alterations of my posting to the article Self-replicating machine are the issue. Frankly, I find nothing COI, POV, or vain about inclusion of discussion of a mechanism. I don't even include my name in the references of the post - only in the listing of references. Further, partial construction is fully described in the conference proceedings for Automata 2008, which is searchable (and readable) on Amazon. Simply look at the section titled Modes of Self-Replication and the Comments section. Ripe simply refuses to become knowledgeable about the facts, preferring to assume that a violation of WP policy exists. I claim his removal of material which I placed in the article Self-replicating machines is a blatant example of vandalism. Partial construction is fully discussed in a paper that is available to the general public, and is described formally in a paper which is accepted by the journal Biological Theory, and is referenced in the Automata 2008 paper. Ripe wants to act as an editor without doing the necessary work of an editor, which is unconscionable. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)