User talk:TheRanger/Archive/Archive-Nov2006

Lake Express incidents are not notable
A rescue and temporary service halt barely register a blip on the notability scale. If a significant amount of people were injured or killed, it would hold up to notability standards. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Milwaukee School of Engineering
Hello, I am curious why you have been reverting my revert/removal of the personal commentary that was recently added to the MSOE article? If you disagree that it is unsourced POV grandstanding, might I suggest replacing the words "Many students" and "Many people" with the word "I" when reading the contribution. Regards. 72.131.44.247 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked by (aeropagitica) for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Spiddy". The reason given for Spiddy's block is: "vandalism.". Your IP address is 72.14.194.18.


 * Ok, hopefully I cleared all the autoblocks. If you find you are still blocked, feel free to revert this comment and restore your unblock notice. Syrthiss 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Dear TheRanger,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you have too few edits in the main article namespace. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. &mdash;Xyrael / 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Help vandalism of my talk page claiming sock puppet
My user page is being attacked by person placing a sock puppet notice to it. These are posters who are upset about a revert I did well on recent change patrol. They cite a block to my ISP's IP address a week ago that my user name was restored from and not part of. How can I stop this notice from being added repeatedly from my user page?? TheRanger 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll watch your user page for the time being and revert changes. I'll review your history as well though. Equendil Talk 20:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, your edit history is pretty clean as far as I can tell, good job fighting vandalism. Request semi-protection from an admin on your user page if that nonsense keeps going on for several days. Equendil Talk 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Listing AFDs
I noticed you just put a couple of AFD listings in the logs for some days last week which I assume you found weren't listed in the logs before. It's up to you, but I (and Dumbbot) always list incomplete nominations in the latest log - as there are only a few people who check the old logs these discussions normally end up getting relisted anyway, so if you put them in the current log it normally saves a bit of shuffling around in the long run. Feel free to ignore me if I've got the wrong end of the stick. Cheers, Yomangani talk 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, I though that they were orginally listed in the logs and got drop some how, I just didn't know how to handle these as I am new to AFD's TheRanger 16:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't list an afd subpage in the log several times. The page Articles for deletion/West Bend Crime Prevention Patrol was listed in the logs for October 2 (twice) and October 4. Once is enough, people will see it, and if not, the discussion will get relisted anyway. There's no reason to 'bump' the discussion, it just creates a mess. Thanks. - Bobet 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix up first time I was working with AFD's and was not sure if a couple things worked or not as I posted them. I got a handle on it now thanks for the tips. TheRanger 23:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, TheRanger! 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. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw that you've been able to get in after all, even though you posted on the discussion page saying you were having trouble logging in. I'm still having trouble logging in. How did you get it to work? Dekimasu 10:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I talked to Betacommand on the vandal proof IRC channel and he had made an error in how he approved me and changed it to be right.  I think part of it was that I need to get access to the VP1.3 as that was the version he apporved.  I would talk to him via the chat or his talk page with your problem, he got right on it when I talked to him about my issue.  Whish I could help more. Best of luck to you. TheRanger 14:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Auschwitz
Hi there; a technical point. While the anonymous user who recently vandalised the Auschwitz Concentration Camp article is clearly an arsehole, wiki would not, I think, condone a blocking on the basis of only one incident. Or are there other offences that I failed to find? Incidentally, I wholly share your sentiment.--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I belive there were other warnings... not sure could have been the wrong key hit on my part. TheRanger 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a rare occasion, it actually happens pretty often. If they're obviously showing intent to harm WP its easier to block... I've never had someone stop after warnings -- Tawker 05:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooops?
You reverted AntiVandalBot back the vandalized version of Pewter here. I fixed it for you. Kevin_b_er 00:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help that one sliped past me some how. TheRanger 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries, the bot sometimes does that.... it's usually instant but there is the odd lag... you were fast to notice it :) -- Tawker 05:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

kinship terminology
please read the explanation I gave on the talk page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would point out that the change I made was after checking the discussion page however it was before you posted to it. When making a change that you refer to the duscussion page for a reason please post the note to the discussion page first.  Thanks. TheRanger 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to get defensive, I was simply informing you that there is an explanation on the talk page. Putting the explanation first is not a bad idea. Nor is it a bad idea to wait just a few minutes before reverting an edit, especially when the edit summary says "see talk." Also, when the person who made the revert is an experienced editors who has contributed extensively to related articles (e.g. family, from which much of the information here was copied). It's called "good faith." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you took my reply defensively, however when doing recent change patroling as I do most times I have less than 30 seconds to review a page and decide if it is vandalism or not. In most case were there is no reason give for or a directive to a talk page that does not address the change it turns out to be vandalism.  I do the best I can to keep wikipedia as good as it can be, sometimes these things happen, so I am glad you found it and were able to change it back.  Thanks TheRanger 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No harm done - and I do think the work you are doing is important, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohio State football
What's up with eliminating two entire sections of this article? I created this article and have contributed most of the content. I work very hard to maintain an NPOV. The sections on super sophs and the 10-year war are simply the next section to be encountered, and factual. Please explain. I don't want to enter any kind of revert war, but the text treated all sides with respect.--Buckboard 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry must have got mixed up well on Recent Change Patrol trying to keep vandlism at bay. TheRanger 22:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanx. I'm going to reinstate the sections. Thank you for being so prompt. Best wishes and keep up the good work. --Buckboard 22:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

apologies
Please see the note I left at User talk:Omicronpersei8. Gotyear 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all the same battle nice to know we have another one on our side, don't let a little mistake like that back you down it happens. Thanks TheRanger 02:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. And I'll take care to make sure it doesn't happen again. :) Btw, can you retract my test1 since it was clearly an accident please? I'd do it, but it'd probably look more proper if you did it. Gotyear 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Beat me to it. Thanks again! Gotyear 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Monster Allergy
Don't worry about the Monster Allergy article, I'm currently working on translating the italian one and was just trying for the easiest possible ways and then I will most likely rework the old article into the new one. You can take a look at it in probably about an hour when I'll probably be done.
 * Great, good luck with the work, sounds like a lot to do thanks for taking it on. TheRanger 16:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

System of a Down
I am not experimenting. I am trimming the discography because we have a separate article called System of Down discography. I think my edit is justified. I am not a newcomer, mind you.
 * Painbearer 16:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok noted, if it were listed in the in the edit line others would know what you are working on. Any way sorry for the mix up and good luck with your project. TheRanger 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Polyethylene revert
Okay, I reverted a bunch of garbage added to the External links section. Can you tell me why you felt this wasn't reasonable? Budgiekiller 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And when editing my talk page, could you please create a new section header instead of adding to the previous discussion? Cheers!  Budgiekiller 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I saw of the change it looked as if a large ammount of good text was being removed with no listed reason. On doing Recent Change Patrol for vandlism sometimes with no reason listed we need to error on the side of keeping the text vs remove, sorry I didn't know what you were trying to do.  As for the sections on the talk page the warning are left via a program and I have no control over that portion.  Everything that was reverted was in the spirt of keeping wikipedia the best it can be and fighting the vandlism. TheRanger 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, but if you're using the tools such as VP then you should report errors as I've described to you, adding warnings to user talk pages without a heading is inappropriate. I've been doing RC patrol for 18 months, and because I don't use the tools, I actually check the content being added/removed/vandalised instead of making an assumption that a chunk of text going missing is vandalism.  Keeping in the spirit is ideal, but checking your edits is essential.  Stating that you didn't know what I was trying to do is crazy since if you'd checked my user page, you'd know I was on RC patrol as well.  Being bold and all that is fine, but be careful.  Budgiekiller 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The error as it may be depending how you view it was in fact logged. I would point out in the warning post it listed "Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page." which if you would have used a edit summary all this would not have happened.  Best of Luck. TheRanger 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find "rvv" is a conventional way of saying "reverting vandalism" which is clearly the case here. Please refrain from your erroneous automated reverts which, in fact, are worse because they do not identify the cause of the revert.  Good luck to you too.  Budgiekiller 20:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you believe that "Reverted 1 edit by Budgiekiller (talk) to last revision (81438830) by 70.230.150.221 using VP)" is a "log" of your revert you are sadly mistaken, and I completely realise that this is as a result of use of the 'tool'. This provides NO info whatsoever as to your reason for reverting other than the fact you used the 'tool' and thought that what it presented to you was vandalism.  My edit summary was as brief but was a standard response to vandalism.  If you continue to use VP in this way, i.e. without checking what the 'tool' suggests you do, then your edits will eventually become vandalism - how ironic.  Cheers!  Budgiekiller 21:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And may I recommend you read the comment of a fellow VP user here to understand why I'm aggrieved. Cheers!  Budgiekiller 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)\
 * Like it has been stated to you the trouble with the Polythene article was that what was a copy of the Wikipedia article from another site copied and pasted back onto the bottom of the page made your edit look as if the whole page had been deleted. To claim that people use a tool like Vandal Proof blindly is simple not true, given the case like this with a edit summary with very little to no information as to why it looks like the whole article is being removed in most cases I would say 99% of the time the best call for Wikipedia as a whole is a revert. The other 1% are fixed when the other editor reposts and fills out the edit summary.  We are both clearly on the same team here doing good for the project, just diffrent methods for doing so. Please accept my apologies and Thanks for your help in making this poject the best it can be. TheRanger 14:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we are both on the same team. Sounds like VP is flawed if it incorrectly reported that a whole article is being deleted.  As stated, the summary added by VP gives the same less info than mine, at least mine stated I was reverting vandalism (which you must accept 'rvv' is commonplace here) while VP states no reason whatsoever.  Continue to use the tools by all means, but be careful with them.  Cheers!  Budgiekiller 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Maafa revert propogates Islam and downplays significance of arab involvement
Hi Ranger, You reverted my entry on the Maafa back to a contradictory article written by Halaqah media. We at Ligali believe that this entry is disingenuously being used as part of a marketing campaign to sell one of their products, in particularly a range branded as “African Holocaust” and a supplementary documentary called “500 Years Later”. The reverted article refers to an individual Owen 'Alik Shahadah who is also the author of said product range and manager at Halaqah. As such it very much reads like a personalised promotional article for both Halaqah products as opposed to a simple and accurate definition of the Maafa.

Furthermore, any reference to the Maafa must clearly make explicit reference to the role of BOTH European and Arab involvement in the oppression and subjugation of African people. Halaqah media as an Arab funded, Islamic organisation continuously removes reference to the colonial and enslavement activities of Arab nations by focusing primarily on Europeans and Jewish people as required by their socio-political ideology. This is both disingenuous and racist.

For example, “The Curse of Ham” section is irrelevant in the context of the Maafa and only serves to denigrate Christianity whilst heralding Islamic academia as the defining authority. The section “How Many” fails to include any reference to the millions of African people who died, were enslaved, raped or oppressed by Arabs and Arabised Africans.

Regards

Toyin

The Ligali Organisation, a non profit voluntary organisation.


 * I will explain my revert very simply has nothing to do with the politics of anything you refer to. In an effort to remove vandlism for Wikipedia I reverted an edit that removed a large ammount of what looked to be a good entry to the article without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page.  The problem for me when reviewing recent changes to Wikipedia with out the edit summary I have no idea what the reason is for this combined with that fact that the edit was made by someone who is not logged as a known editor lead me to feel that the edit was vandlism.
 * However as I look back on it now I can see what you are saying. It seems that you have a good reason for the edit.  If I were you I would make the change and do so again if someone keeps adding a point of veiw that is not showing both sides, however please note this in the articles talk page and in the edit summary.  Please accept my apologies for the revert it was only meet to make Wikipedia better. TheRanger 16:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ranger, Thank you for your considered response, i will of course take your advice. Regards Toyin


 * I can no longer afford the time to keep correcting biased entries propagating an obvious pro Islamic bias dominating all wiki entries with respect to the Maafa, and also including wiki topics “Islam and Slavery” and “Christianity and Slavery” (to name a few). All entries to do with the slavery and religion should be faith neutral.

In its simplest academic definition the Maafa did not begin 500 years ago but covered a 1300-year-long period (652 CE – Present) of African conquest, enslavement, domination, oppression, exploitation and genocide at the hands of Europeans and Arabs. This is not supposition or speculation but fact which can be evidenced from numerous reputable sources, from the British Museum to UNESCO, it is cited in literature from both African and European historians. In fact the only group that continues to downplay the arab involvement in Africa enslavement and oppression are Arabs themselves or those who are Arab affiliated.

I find it ludicrous that I should have to be involved in a disingenuous ‘revision war’ for an entry that I was actually responsible for updating and developing beyond its original single paragraph stub status. I believe instances like this increases the growing mythos of Wikipedia being a disreputable source of information instead of realising its potential as an online pioneer of organic, collaborative knowledge. - Ligali, 13:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)