User talk:Vanished User jdksfajlasd/Archives/2009/2009/February

image
Hello Staffwaterboy!

I noticed that you quickly reverted one of my changes and sent me a message about; however, I believe that my edit was accurate. You see, I simply replaced a dead link with a "No image available" message after checking the Wikimedia Commons website for any images of the person in word; and they seemed to have not, so instead of displaying a red link with no picture, I wrote what I wrote. --96.232.53.171 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

People to People Student Ambassador Program
Hi Staffwaterboy, I just wanted to mention that you may have jumped the gun in characterizing my reversion as vandalism. The editors of the People to People Student Ambassador Program article have debated (multiple times) the relevance of the Hill lawsuit and its worthiness of inclusion in the main article. The consensus amongst the editors so far has been to wait until the court makes a decision and then re-evaluate. What was re-inserted into the article today is a one-sided presentation of that suit and, indeed, the suit may not be relevant enough to include in the article in the first place (something being discussed on the discussion page). There was a new contributor to the article today who essentially re-inserted the disputed text so I moved that text back to the discussion page and encouraged that user review the existing debate on the discussion page. I've also started a new discussion of the topic on that page. By encouraging the revert of my edit, I think you may have trumped the existing consensus amongst the editors of that article (i.e. re-inserted controversial text that the editors have chosen to leave on the discussion page until the court has rendered its decision). I ask you to re-evaluate whether my reversion was vandalism in light of this information. Sometimes the vandal is not the person doing the reverting, but the person who keeps reinserting a topic that has already been rejected by the consensus of the article's editors. Thanks.Nowthenews (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I sense massive confusion starting to spiral here and so I'd like to make another attempt to solve it before it gets out of control. User:Reboot re-introduced controversial text into People to People Student Ambassador Program. I deleted that text and moved it to the discussion page, where I then added some comments to discuss the move. This reset the article back to the editorial consensus. Thingg was using a program to remove vandalism and reverted my edit to the article. He now agrees that was a bit hasty and I believe he is in the process of undoing that. Very shortly after Thingg made his reversion, you flagged me for vandalism and reverted my edit. I suspect that you were flagging the same thing that Thingg flagged but you accidentally reverted my comments on the discussion page instead of my edit in the main article (which Thingg had already reverted)! My comments on the discussion page were an attempt to resolve the conflict and to encourage editorial input on the controversial text. I've re-inserted that, as I don't think discussion page comments warrant reversion except in extreme cases. Nowthenews (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, it looks like User:Reboot undid your reversion and re-inserted my comments on the discussion page that critiqued his edit. It's back to normal now so no need to trouble you again. No harm, no foul.Nowthenews (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that. Probably also should involve the other articles related to the same group (that I was going to suggest be merged). Reboot (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Well your program is probably not far off at this stage. He won't listen to me and puts the entire burden for consensus on me. I am a bit suspicious at this point due to some of the ips that work for the company and new accounts that started pretty quickly with this article and focus on it... So it is a revert war. Reboot (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also look at Ambassadors_Group and People_to_People which should all be merged with that article if it stays IMO Reboot (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Staffwaterboy, I welcome mediation or a third opinion here. I disagree with Reboot's characterization. If you examine the discussion history on Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program I think you'll find that it is Reboot who is vandalizing by continually trying to re-insert text that previous editors have already tried to refashion or reject. He is trying to re-introduce unsubstantiated lawsuit allegations that an actual litigant (who is suing the program for damages) in the case tried to previously introduce into the article in order to slander the program. There has been no court decision, and I have pointed to other opinions by other editors who recommend that (1) the text either be tabled until a court has rendered an opinion or (2) the text be removed because unsubstantiated lawsuit allegations are prejudicial and not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. I am not an employee of the company and I reject Reboot's insinuations here as an attempt to color the argument. Moreover, there are other editors such as User:Robert Horning who have weighed in [] on the article's talk page who have concluded that discussion of the Hill incident ought to be tabled until a court has actually rendered an opinion: "But I would also have to agree that it is a bit early to add much more than a mere reference to the incident, which by itself isn't noteworthy enough for an independent Wikipedia article" Nowthenews (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Staffwaterboy Reboot (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Weighing in on this issue
I am not entirely certain why you added the speedy delete tag for these articles, and frankly I view this action as a sort of vandalism attempt. In particular, why in the heck would you recommend to delete a talk page and not the main article? That makes absolutely no sense and is contrary to Wikipedia speedy deletion guidelines.

Neither of these articles were candidates for the speedy delete process, although perhaps an AfD might have been in order.... although I think the only reasonable grounds even there could have been over notability reasons. Even so, there have been plenty of source of information about these organizations.

I got involved with these articles due to getting contacted by People to People in their attempt to recruit my son into their program. I went to Wikipedia in order to find some information about the company and what I found here was an absolute mess in terms of POV and sources of content. I found some additional information and have tried to clean up this article, but it has been the source of a huge astro-turfing campaign.... at first by promoters of People to People and then by this family that is in the middle of a lawsuit. I've tried to maintain some objectivity to these and other related articles, and not try to show WP:OWN as well. It is a tough walk to make.

Your actions here, however, are not the way to proceed and to blow up the discussion into something it is not. This is not helpful, nor are you engaging in helping out Wikipedia by attempting to delete this content. A stub is not necessarily rationale for a speedy deletion candidate, and this certainly isn't a brand new article created just for the heck of it. Actions like this are precisely what drives people away from Wikipedia and discourages new users from even trying to make meaningful contributions. That this is a controversial article is true, but that means you must take an even lighter approach and moderate the issues involved, not get heavy handed and demand administrator action. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Global Destiny Cable Vandal
It looks like this guy has been running around tearing that page apart. What do you think, next warning 4im? --AmaraielSend Message 02:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism
See User talk:79.75.114.109; please check what you revert. Those were definitely not test edits, definitely not vandalism, and actually a good edit. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that I too was a bit dismayed at you reverting this edit. Rollback and the use of bots for this purpose is only used for blatant vandalism. I'm only adding this comment because a browse of your talk page shows you have done this in the past, so please stop and be more careful. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And why might i ask that you would already bring back a topic that was already resolved.No offense of course  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 04:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I was just browsing the current main page featured article and noticed your edits. And like I said above, I noticed on your talk page you have done this in the past so I thought I'd reiterate the point (maybe I didn't need to but I like making sure new contributors are not scared off, and reverted edits too quick can do that). LonelyMarble (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's understandable. How ever as i stated i am receiving a numerous amount of false positives when trying to revert vandalism i do take full responsibility for all my edits please don't misinterpret that..

Take care

 Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 04:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah no problem, keep up the good work at fighting vandalism, it's definitely appreciated. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Rather Impressed....
As the subject says, I'm rather impressed sir. You seem to be able to revert several things almost at once (or so it would seem to me). Are you using something automated? --AmaraielSend Message 05:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SireBot
I hope you are planning to seek approval for this bot account. Daniel Case (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your bot has not been 'deleted' - user accounts cannot be deleted. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For cleaning up my pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fringehawk
I've removed your speedy on this article and replaced it with a prod, because it does not fit the G1 criteria for speedy deletion. But thanks for patrolling the new pages! Regards, FingersOn  Roids  19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Garrett A. Morgan Page
Since your favorite subject is computing like me, I'll assume you value efficiency. You seem quick to revert pages when the changes based on the posts here, so allow me to explain that I was only optimizing the page by removing unnecessary spaces and characters. But I would like to know that you reverted the information I added to the Infobox.

Hello.
Ok, well not to be rude but I have some SERIOUS suggestions for Wikipedia. First off not everyone should be able to change or edit what is written in the articles, only administrators should have the authority to do so. The reason I say this is because I am tired of reading an article and then seeing someone mess it up, for instance I'm doing a 13 page report on the desert, and half of the stuff on the article seems wrong. I'm not saying this is you fault but I would like you to check into this. Thanks for taking the time to read my message and I would like a response as soon as possible. Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTroxU (talk • contribs)  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok,
I'll try to remember to do that, thanks for telling me. Oh but before I forget, for some reason when I click "Go" or "Search" it doesn't work. I checked my connection and everything. If this is any help to you I typed "Desert Biome" and still nothing is working for me. So I don't know if it's just the server or what but please respond to this A.S.A.P. one more thing, how do I know if I have a new message without just logging in? Thanks! --DTroxU (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page archives
Hello, could I ask why you want your talk page archives deleted? We usually don't delete these, as they serve as a record of your interactions with others. I've declined the speedies on these in the meantime. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see; ok, I'll delete those you had tagged, then. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A few questions.
How would I create an article if I were going to? And is there any features that I should know about on Wikipedia, because being as new to this as I am I have absolutely no clue. If there is could you please let me know how to use or get to them. And thank you so very much for reading my last message, and one more question. Are there any skateboarding articles? :D --DTroxU (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Walter Panas HS - article is WP:NOT
We are writing encyclopedia articles: not "advertisements" for the High School atheletic clubs, not "how to" register for teams, not "tributes" to the athletic director. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic expansion possibilities are probably quite limited for a high school, but if you have reliable sources that note any state championships that the school has won, any state records, things along that line. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Organisation of the Islamic Conference
Hello, the anonymous user you warned on the Organisation of the Islamic Conference-article (User:208.1.104.78) is busy again. Could you do something against it?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Any idea...
...what this is about? Just curious...  Doulos Christos   ♥ talk   20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just checking.
So that i'm sure whether or not I did something wrong, what do you mean by "threat"?

--DTroxU (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages
Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:86.4.127.20, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just A Question
While I can understand your motive in removing the banner from my page, why did you also delete my comments responding to the denial to unblock me? 67.55.70.4 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Was probably also reverted along with the banner for some reason i will try to get that back on the page.

Take care

 Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 21:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)