User talk:GoodDamon/Archives/2007/October

Week 1 October WP:ORE COTW
I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for this week’s COTW, so here they are: Barlow Road and Columbia River Plateau. Both are almost Start class, just some formatting and referencing, plus a little expansion and they will be there!

As to last week, it is difficult to track the items we were working on, but I know some pictures were added and at least three red links were removed from Oregon, so thank you to all those who participated. The award winner will be GoodDamon for their creation of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute article. We have now worked through all the Top class stubs and are into the High class stubs. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Happy editing, and remember if you see a downed power line, don’t pick it up. Aboutmovies 20:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Friendly clarification
Hello there, I'm concerned that you feel my describing the situation on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard with Lermanet/Misou as a double standard was intended to imply bad faith on anyone's part. I've found that it's best not to mention one or two editors specifically if several others are also doing the same thing, those identified tend to point to those who were not and say "How come you didn't mention so and so?"

I was actually just pointing out that each "side" has a double standard when it comes to those sites, when in reality if using one site is unacceptable then they both (probably) are for the same reasons. Anynobody 05:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. I think my main concern is that there's so much accusation on all sides that even using the term "double standard" is inviting trouble. --GoodDamon 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an understandable concern, I honestly used to try avoiding pointing out any errors directly. The problem I encountered was that nothing seemed to get resolved that way, and moreover I even found this approach to cause misunderstanding. In this case, no matter what I say, certain editors are going to assume the worst; The only thing I can do is be honest and direct.

Which brings me back to another reason I abandoned the less assertive approach; by following the rules when editing an article like L. Ron Hubbard one is bound to stir up accusations from either side anyway. I could've sworn I've seen your name in some pro-CoS posts mentioned as an "anti-Scientologist" for doing nothing more than following policies and guidelines. Since they say the sources should speak for themselves, and most (if not all) WP:RS sources don't have much positive to say about Hubbard; Simply following the rules will get one called a bigot by passionate Scientologists. It occurred to me avoiding such accusations was about as likely as avoiding getting wet while swimming. I'm not saying you should change your ways, I actually hope it works for you better than it did me on this subject. I am saying that accusations are inevitable. Anynobody 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did get one or two such accusations from Shutterbug, but s/he seemed to back off when I pointed out how neutral my edits and stance really are. I don't agree with either "side" very much. --GoodDamon 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I, after all I got involved to correct the errors on both sides about Hubbard's Naval career. Among other things, I wish anti-COS editors would stop using the Penthouse interview by Hubbard's bitter son. I don't get any credit with the pro-COS faction for that, because the truth aligns even less with what they say about what he did in the navy and elsewhere. Anynobody 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Abody. Might I point out to you that "recruitment" is a no-no? Pretty slippery here already. See you. Shutterbug 05:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS:Damon, never mind, this is insider babble. Stay what you are, tks. Shutterbug 05:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He's actually been editing the L. Ron Hubbard article, so this could hardly be viewed as "recruiting". (Nothing "inside" about it either, Shutterbug was warned not to recruit editors offline.) an example. Thanks for your concern though. Anynobody 07:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

UserPage
I like it ! Next thing I would do is play around with the background colours. Oh and by the way, you can remove the notice at the bottom about me. I misinterpreted how you were going to use the code, you have made it distinctly different and your own. > Rugby471 talk &#9876; 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. I'll do more work on it when I've got the time. :) --GoodDamon 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was messing with a friend.
Dont cop an attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.34.18 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like random vandalism when you attack someone from an anonymous IP address. I'm afraid that will be reverted, and you will be warned every time you do it. --GoodDamon 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

++

No worries
No worries, my fault for not stating it in my reason for editing. talk:64.231.246.246 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.246.246 (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WPOR CoTW: Don Schollander & Conde McCullough
Greetings WPOR world. Last week was great with the Barlow Road seeing lots of improvement, maybe even B class. Columbia River Plateau also saw some improvement, maybe enough to bump it to Start. On with the countdown, another two Stubs in the High category, both happen to be people: Don Schollander a multi-gold medalist; and then world-renowned bridge architect and all-around swell guy Conde McCullough. Schollander needs sources more than anything, and McCullough needs more of a bio, plus maybe a nice chart for the bridges with type/year/location/length. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. This week’s safety tip, stranger=danger. Aboutmovies 18:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse?
hello do not accuse me of vandalism many of the subjects areas on wikipedia people have added complete lies to the end of the articles and these have gone un-noticed for months please do your job better by spoting these many mistakes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kams187 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You deleted content from multiple pages instead of correcting them. You did it in many places. Yes, that is vandalism, yes I will call you a vandal if you do it, and yes I will revert those edits. Feel free to contribute productively instead of deleting wide swaths of data. Correct it if it's wrong, cite your sources, and we'll be gold, OK? --GoodDamon 20:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Automatic edits
Just wanted to give you a heads-up that your script-based reverts may not always be doing what you expect. For an example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jabari_Greer&diff=162092738&oldid=162092368, where such a reversion seems to have actually reintroduced old vandalism.

Mmarkley 01:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, thank you! I hadn't caught that. In cases like that, the script doesn't know how to revert more than one vandal's edits, and sometimes, unfortunately, if two vandals have hit a page in a row, it will do exactly as you described. I try to read over each diff to make sure it's not restoring any vandalism, but I obviously missed it that time. My bad. --GoodDamon 02:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WOTF #23
Hey, "Our Last Words" was one of my favorite stories in the book. Congrats on the win!. RedSpruce 18:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't want to mention my own involvement, since anything I say about it from that perspective would be original research, but now that you mentioned it, the workshop was not only a prize, it was the main prize, and a fantastic one at that! Tim Powers rocks! --GoodDamon 20:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't seen this review yet: http://sandstormreviews.blogspot.com/2007/10/writers-of-future-xxiii.html. Your story "approached greatness". no less! RedSpruce 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I saw that! Not sure I agree with the reviewer on the stories she didn't care for, but I definitely agree with her on what she likes... ;)

Just so you know, I wasn't in any way being a vandal.
Hello GoodDamon. I believe you to be the one that reverted my page on Lyman High School. That, in fact, wasn't needed. The page, as I'm sure you've noticed, reads like an advertisement. That in itself is vandalism in my book, I was trying to make it more realistic. As I am a former student of Lyman High School, and a long time local, I know very truthful information about the school. The fact that a non-attendee was trying to erase my information/improvements is completley infuriating. Therefore, I'd very much appreciate it if you stopped.
 * It does read like an advertisement. The solution to that isn't the wholesale deletion of content. The solution is to fix the content, add references, add more notable detail, etc. In other words, the solution is to correct the document. Blanking out whole sections without so much as an edit summary is vandalism, whether intentional or not, and if I hadn't reverted it, someone else would have. I'm sorry you find it infuriating, but that's the way it is. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Today you reverted a change I made to the Eugene, Oregon page. Under notable athletes from Eugene, Nate Jaqua is listed as a forward for Chicago Fire, he is actually now a forward for Houston Dynamo. Here's the proof from MLS' site: []. Or you could have just read the wikipedia article on him. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.71.27 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. I've got a head cold today, and I'm not firing on all cylinders. I actually meant to revert a different edit entirely (I've got multiple tabs open) and obviously chose the wrong one. --GoodDamon 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiOregon COTW
Greetings once again WikiProject Oregon members. Thank you to those who help out with improving Conde McCullough and Don Schollander last week. This week is a Stub break, with a Ref improvement drive for Oregon and a request for work on Portland Police Bureau. For the ref improvement, this means sourcing tagged statements and standardizing all existing citations, both of which are needed for GA and FA status. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The pathetic ramblings of a vandal
I deleted the entries myself actually, so you must have been looking at an older unrefreshed page.

Also, you aren't a mod so I don't see why you have taken it upon yourself to fight some pathetic crusade against what you believe to be vandalism. One man's vandalism is another man's treasure, and who the hell appointed you to be some sort of divine arbiter of Wikipedia???

Stop editing things and just leave them alone. The mods will delete stuff soon enough, if it needs to be deleted. You yourself have no right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.71.130 (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My response, as if he's gonna bother looking
Yes, I know you deleted the entries yourself. When I started the script-based reversion of your vandalism, you hadn't yet reverted yourself. All of that is moot, of course, because you still vandalized in the first place.

And yes, I'm not a mod. I'm just some guy who happened to spot your vandalism and uses scripts to revert vandals. Takes about three seconds, so why not do it? One man's vandalism is, I'm afraid, another man's vandalism, so you'll get reverted by somebody no matter where you do it. Sometimes it'll be by a mod, and sometimes it'll be by the random schmo who happened to spot it, like me.

Funny story... You're the second vandal to come to my page and complain about the warnings I've left on your talk pages. In each case, the vandalism was so blatant, so hilariously obvious, I have to wonder why either of you bothered.

So, in summary...
 * You're a vandal, and we'd all really appreciate it if you stopped.
 * You'll be warned, and then blocked if you persist. Your vandalism is not treasured.
 * Seriously, "WAKE UP RETARD!!!!" is a treasure, and you're upset for my warning you about it?

Sincerely, GoodDamon 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
Howdy doody ya’ll WPOR poke, time for more COTW. Thanks for the work on Portland Police Bureau and improving the references at Oregon. This week we are back to Stubs with Eastern Oregon and Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Both need just a little TLC to make it to Start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 02:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: October 2007
FYI, why don't you observe the edit first, which based upon you reaction either shows that you didn't or that you don't understand it, before you revert instead of letting a script tell you what is vandalism or not. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, alright, i'll let it slide. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to L Ron Hubbard
I reverted your edit |here because I felt it didn't sound right. Your edit used the word "prior" but I'm pretty sure he continued writing fiction after he created scientology and dianetics. I know youre edit was a good faith one but I just thought it made the intro sound a little inaccurate. Hopefully that makes sense :-) Elhector 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I was under the impression that he took an extended break from writing fiction after founding the Church, but perhaps I'm mistaken. --GoodDamon 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

SPAM ala COTW
Ladies and Gentlemen its time for another episode of Collaboration of the Week. Last week’s show starring Fort Vancouver National Historic Site & Eastern Oregon received high ratings. This week’s show star two more stubs, Johnny Kitzmiller & John Wesley Davis. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Don’t delay, act today! Aboutmovies 18:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Footer
My apologies about that miscommunication over at Scientology. I made the changes you mentioned, does it look okay now to you? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Looks very nice. Thanks! And no hard feelings. :) --GoodDamon 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, great! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC).