User talk:Alphachimp: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:26, 28 October 2006 editCowman109 (talk \| contribs)6,540 edits Semi-protection of policy pages← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:30, 28 October 2006 edit undoKingjeff (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users87,419 editsm →Kaka Next edit →
Line 234:		Line 234:
	I think you made the wrong decision regarding the protection of the Kaka page. The problem is essentially the same reason for the semi protection. This false and unsource claim of him becoming a art of Islam. We were reverting that for a while now and now we're seeing this from registered users now. I can garantee that this will eventually be fully protected sometime down in the near future because of this. ] 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)		I think you made the wrong decision regarding the protection of the Kaka page. The problem is essentially the same reason for the semi protection. This false and unsource claim of him becoming a art of Islam. We were reverting that for a while now and now we're seeing this from registered users now. I can garantee that this will eventually be fully protected sometime down in the near future because of this. ] 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
	:Full protection is not a tool for enforcing an "approved version" of a page. Instead, it's a technique to stop edit warring. You can check out ] for more information. Full-protecting usually does not help our encyclopedia and should be used sparingly (at most). Also, since semi-protection, there was '''''one''''' disputed edit. Just one. I really don't think that merits, in any way, full protection to stop an edit war. ] 05:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)		:Full protection is not a tool for enforcing an "approved version" of a page. Instead, it's a technique to stop edit warring. You can check out ] for more information. Full-protecting usually does not help our encyclopedia and should be used sparingly (at most). Also, since semi-protection, there was '''''one''''' disputed edit. Just one. I really don't think that merits, in any way, full protection to stop an edit war. ] 05:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

			It's not so much about me approving as it is about me disapproving of this page. I can ganrantee this will become an edit war with IP address that have become registered users. This is not just 1 disputed edit. This is 1 topic that has been reverted serveral times. ] 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

	==TFN==		==TFN==

Revision as of 05:30, 28 October 2006

Top | New message | Archives | User page | Contribs | User log

Please click here to leave me a new message and I will respond here. I suggest temporarily watching this page. Please SIGN your comments using ~~~~. I may not be able (although I will try) to respond to unsigned comments.
If you are coming here to request immediate admin assistance, you might do better on WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Even when I'm online, I can take some time to respond, and I'm prone to leaving the computer frequently.

If you received a vandalism warning from me and don't know why, you are probably browsing with an IP address used by many different people. You should not be concerned, as the warning was probably not meant for you. If you are blocked and feel you should not be, you are welcome to put {{unblock|Reason why you should be unblocked}} on your talk page. Thank you.
Further reading: Misplaced Pages:Advice to AOL users, Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 2 days are automatically archived to User talk:Alphachimp/Archive 7. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

editing and warnings

Hi I just recieved an editing warning. Im quite sure I did not edit under any of these headings, the only time i have used this site was for research to do a health project and the only other users of this computer are both over 60 and do nothing but check their e-mail and play pogo games. Do you have any idea how this confusing situation may have occurred or what I can do to ensure it does not happen again? mcbreal@aol.com

It's a shared AOL IP. I wouldn't worry too much. Alphachimp 01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Accident

I didn't mean to vadalize a page, it was an accident, but i will be more careful next time.

ok. Alphachimp 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

you might want to semi-protect "2003 invasion of Iraq" to prevent vandalism

WP:RFPP, the issue is probably moot now. Alphachimp 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA!

Alphachimp, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Need an opinion on this

This looks to me like someone bulk-spamming himself all over the hip-hop/rap articles...what's the appropriate way to deal with it? -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a warning would have been appropriate, but it seems nobody caught him while he was editing. I've reverted all his edits and left a warning not to continue. If you do notice that such behavior is persisting, go through the warnings (see WP:TT) and then report the spammer to WP:AIV. Thanks for the report. Alphachimp 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In the average case, I would have run through the warnings, but I didn't notice it until a few minutes ago, when he'd already spammed a few dozen articles. Reverting all of those edits without the admin rollback button is a pain. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:POINT by User:KJWRE

I notice that you blocked this user for External Links spam and once the block expired, he seemed to go a link blanking spree on the articles Andrea James, Electrology, and Hair Removal. I reverted the blanking and left a note on the user's page to encourage him to refer to WP:EL however it does seem to be a bit of WP:POINT. Agne 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I will be monitoring the situation. Alphachimp 05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At your suggestion I removed spamming links by other parties and in no form or manner did I post a link.

Dear Alphachimp,

At your suggestion I removed spamming links by other parties and in no form or manner did I post a link.

KW — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJWRE (talk • contribs)

I would strongly suggest you avoid any possibly defamatory edits. Thanks. Alphachimp 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Misplaced Pages	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Misplaced Pages in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

In regard to your last email, that was actually a colleague of mine (re: changes to Indigo children and Zoltan), so I have no idea why I've received this email, although I guess the IP numbers are close.

Many thanks

Stirling Attfield stirling.attfield@bauer.co.uk

OK, no worries. Alphachimp 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the vandals you blocked...

...is being rather tiresome (). Can I suggest a page protect or some other admin wizardry? --Dweller 16:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's protected. I think that should suffice for the meantime (until it's deleted). Thanks for the report. Alphachimp 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Al.! I need help!

Along with my user space my talk page has also been blocked. I am hoping that it is not In response to my previous behavior. Again please help. R.S.V.P.--19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Alphachimp,

The above message belongs to me. Thank you.--Missingno. 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock my userspace so l can add one last thing

1.1.1.1 This is what I want to have added. Please un protect Qho, my other self. Feel free to re protect them after that. Thanks again. Template:Long wikibreak

OK, all done. Let me know if you need anything more. Feel free to come back and contribute at any time. Alphachimp 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

I'd also like to note that I totally didn't cannibalize anything from your RfA thanks template for this. I'll look forward to seeing you around the wiki. :) Luna Santin 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Correction

Thanks for correcting my spelling error on my user page. I can't believe I only noticed your helpful edit now! Erich Blume 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

haha, my pleasure. =) Alphachimp 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What does process have to do with it?

I'd be interested to hear why you think I'm against process, or what you think it could possibly have to do with necessary counter-vandalism measures. --Cyde Weys 03:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting a bit here. You've told me that you are against process, particularly in regard to the unnaproved operation of your bot () from your sysop account.That said, I'm just explaining the reasoning for my statement. You can make whatever you want of it, and I'll WP:AAGF that you will WP:AGF about that statement. Love, Alphachimp 04:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unapproved? Whatever gave you that idea? --Cyde Weys 20:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, our prior discussions. What exactly are you trying to achieve by badgering me on my talk page? Alphachimp 20:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for blanking my page. I would prefer it plain out deleted, but that's a good temporary fix for now. Smeelgova 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

Ummm. . . Thanks for your help

Well I see that you got that done but the missingno wiki break does not seem to show up. I see it in the veiw source but not on the page it self. So what might be happening? Again thanks for the assistance,--Missingno. 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm

Well Never Mind it got up and is going. Odd. And An Drew Sombody Should really get off his high horse. Because of his complaints I am deleting all of my accounts, well thats not the whole reason, my personality just does not fit with many of the admis.Oh no... I am fighting again.I am most likely to be blocked again if i continue. Well this is the last of Missingno. Although you might see me again under a different name... Check for the "you know who" comment before or in place of the actual name. See You later. Read This, section 14 If these comments are in violation of wiki civil please delete them.--Missingno. 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Weston Reservoir

Hello. I created Weston Reservoir and a number of others. If you would look at its history, you will notice that an annoymous person has been making changes that are wrong. I tried to leave information at Talk:Weston_Reservoir but it is ignored. How do I prevent annoymous from continuing this destruction? LymanSchool 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I created Weston Reservoir and quite a few other water system articles. An anonymous user (141.154.89.148) keeps making invalid changes to the MWRA overview section. The information presented may seem credible, but has no basis in fact. Further, MWRA’s system improvements were made with redundancy part of an engineered solution. The anonymous writer kept referring to the use of this redundancy as “emergency” and in one case “extreme emergency.” These editorial comments should not be part of an encyclopedic article. The anonymous writer does not bother to read the information I left, simply sets itself as some sort of expert, and continues to spew undocumented and in most cases completely invalid diatribe.

I reverted some of the previous edits, but I cannot spend too much time undoing the wrong information every day. How do I prevent this anonymous writer from continuing to destroy the validity of this article? LymanSchool 11:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to this user]. I'd suggest leaving polite messages on their talk page (I've left a welcome, but I don't know enough about the situation). Other than that, our best control would be to eventually block the user for ignorance of warnings, but I'd rather not do that for a little while. Let's try to generate some dialogue up. By the way, I'd be careful how you welcome the anonymous users. He might not be responding because your first comment accused him of screwing with the article. Hope that helps. Alphachimp 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was quite kind! I note that the same address is now engaged in an edit-war on the Fitchburg, Massachusetts article, so I figure it won't be too long before you hear about (he/she/it) from others! Thanks LymanSchool 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal going wild!

Please block the following IP address:

72.159.129.226

This person is wreaking havoc on several articles this morning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.127.119 (talk • contribs)

Already blocked and edits reverted. Alphachimp 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hargeisa

Some anynomous user has changed and added offensive material on the Hargeisa article, can you sort it out please!!!

Abdullah Geelah 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with it, but feel free to revert the vandalism yourself. Check out WP:REVERT. Alphachimp 14:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Hey there, Alphachimp. I would like to fully protect my userpage, if possible, and I am asking you because I want someone else to judge my page history and see if it really needs protection.

Thanks. Nishkid64 01:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh...I'm not so sure. It's obviously your own judgment (and some sysops do it), but I'm against Full Protection of sysop userpages in most cases. In the last 50 edits, the majority of vandalism appears to be coming from anonymous or new editors. I'd suggest semi-protecting (but if that doesn't work, absolutely use full). Coincidentally, protection would also block bots from editing your page.

So yeah, those are my $.02. Alphachimp 01:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei

The Da vinci Code depicted Opus Dei like a dangerous cult. Any problem with this allegations into the book?. Well, on the other hand ex-members laicists and other persons (and associations like ODAN, websites like Opuslibros and others) say that OD has a cult like style. Any problem with these other persons and your claims? I do not a vandal, I know and have good sources about Od (in english and mostly in Spanish)Do you undestand Spanish language?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.6.210 (talk • contribs)

No I only speak English. I checked the edit again and realized I was in error. I've fixed it and welcomed you again. Sorry about that! Alphachimp 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaka

I think you made the wrong decision regarding the protection of the Kaka page. The problem is essentially the same reason for the semi protection. This false and unsource claim of him becoming a art of Islam. We were reverting that for a while now and now we're seeing this from registered users now. I can garantee that this will eventually be fully protected sometime down in the near future because of this. Kingjeff 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Full protection is not a tool for enforcing an "approved version" of a page. Instead, it's a technique to stop edit warring. You can check out WP:PROTECT for more information. Full-protecting usually does not help our encyclopedia and should be used sparingly (at most). Also, since semi-protection, there was one disputed edit. Just one. I really don't think that merits, in any way, full protection to stop an edit war. Alphachimp 05:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much about me approving as it is about me disapproving of this page. I can ganrantee this will become an edit war with IP address that have become registered users. This is not just 1 disputed edit. This is 1 topic that has been reverted serveral times. Kingjeff 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

TFN

thank you very much for protecting the TFN page. a few of its message board members were trying to vandalize it. Quietmind 05:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Quietmind

Sure. Alphachimp 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of policy pages

You recently semi-protected quite a few policy pages based on a supposed consensus at Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy, but the consensus merely consisted of about five users over two days discussing the policy, and it appears there were quite a few objections to the policy as well. I don't want to wheel war with you, so I'd like to politely ask if you could unprotect the pages in question while this is sorted out as this policy essentially rewrites the semi-protection, and much more time and a wider community input is necessary for such a drastic change. Thanks. Cowman109 05:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)