Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 30 July 2006

• /Archive1 5 Sept 2004 - 6 Jan 2006
• /Archive2 7 Jan 2006 - 4 Jun 2006

Thanks

I appreciate your revert of the vandalism on my user page earlier tonight... glad to know you dont think I'm a pseudo-intellectual. Dunne409 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer footnotes

Excellent. The article needs proper referencing and footnotes. That might encourage myself and others to do properly. Thanks! SilkTork 07:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for vandalizing earlier, but I'm definitely not from Unnul Technology lol. I live in WV.63.23.81.82 02:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

lol WHOIS is quite inaccurate fyi. I don't even think west virginia is programmed into their system.63.23.81.82 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting "URL accessed" dates

Since you've been editing these (in the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi article), I wonder if you know more than I about how these work. Specifically, is there any way to get anything other than the ugly ] date format to display? I tried putting the dates into square brackets, but this just screws up the formatting altogether. Since the rest of the article uses the month day, year format, it would be nice to get these dates to play along with it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been experimenting a bit with Template:Cite web, using this: {{cite web | title=Title | work=Title of Complete Work | url=http://www.example.com | year=] | month = ]}}, gives you:

• "Title". Title of Complete Work. 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

Hope that helps. -Loren 23:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whois Template?

I saw you drop that whois template on the user discussion page of a vandal IP that I had been keeping an eye on because of their repetitive vandalism of Flying Spaghetti Monster. What is the code for that template, out of curiosity? Thanks. ju66l3r 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding AOL Vandalism

The vandalism (removed from WP:AIV) persists. I've removed at least 4-5 vulva photos in the last 20 minutes. Just figured I would give you the heads up. I won't post it anymore though unless an admin wants me to. --Alphachimp 07:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, AOL vandalism is a pain in the butt to put it mildly. I removed the last batch of AOL IPs since they hadn't been used for the last half hour... most likely the vandal had moved on to other IPs. Please keep reporting them though. While there may not always be an admin watching at the right time we might be able to stop a few in the act. If you'd like I can also semiprotect your user page or any articles the vandal seems to favor. -Loren 07:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't seem to be favoring anything in particular. Actually, AOL has yet to vandalize my page. I really hate this vandalism because it is inserting pornography through wikipedia. I'd hate for some little kid to log on and find it in an article.

Thanks for the explanation. I wish there was some easy solution. Regards, --Alphachimp 07:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL range vandal

You commented that the AOL range vandal has continued. Can you please give some specific examples of edits in this most recent attack so the rest of us know what to look for? You can post this info at User:Mboverload/vandalattack. Thanks. --Cyde↔Weys 04:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that we were getting frequent vandalism from the vandal's IP range 207.200.116.0/24. The telltale sign for now seems to be closely spaced vandalism originating from 207.200.116.*, usually one every 30 seconds or so. Most of the recent edits seem to have fallen into the category of intentionally screwing up Wikimarkup or adding nonsense . It is possible that the recent edits from this range were simply a coincidence from different users, though the fact that they occured within a few seconds of each other seemed suspect. The vandal's last confirmed MO (earlier today) was inserting gibberish or malformatted equations across multiple articles. The vandalism seems to have stopped following the expiry of a 15 minute block I stuck on the IP range. This and past patterns exhibited by the vandal leads me to suspect that we are not dealing with a bot. The most recent edits from that range seem to be mostly okay so far. This would appear to be consistant with his/her past behavior of disappearing for several minutes to hours after a range block. -Loren 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

GrandCru is back

See Special:Contributions/Bobybuilder. I'm pretty sure this is him. —Khoikhoi 02:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #2

The July issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Committee against WP Orthographic Imperialism

I know, it sounds tongue in cheek, but.... I thought you might be interested: CAWPOI. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-17 15:24 (UTC) P.S. I decided to change the name to "Committee for WP Orthographic Justice." :)

IP 207.195.240.16

FYI - It appears you blocked this IP for Abusive sockpuppet of User:Devout Christian, however, it is an IP of the Anonymous service Anonymizer. Morphh 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is improper to indefinitely block IPs except for open proxies. This IP may not be in the hands of DC after some time. 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.4.237 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the heads up, I've shortened the block on the IP in question. -Loren 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan under Japanese rule

Great work. I'll see what I can do. But my Chinese isn't good enough to do a good translation  :) — Nrtm81 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

naming convention

I noticed you protect the chinese naming conventions and reverted to the version by Yuje. However, my version is in fact supported by Yuje and he made a revert on it see history:07:03, 28 July 2006 Yuje (Talk | contribs), please make a revert to the newest version by Yuje. Thanks.--Bonafide.hustla 06:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

However, Bonafide.hustla's version is opposed by Calton, 14:34, 28 July 2006 Calton (Talk | contribs) (rv political opinion -- not Misplaced Pages's role) here. Also, Bonafide.hustla initially added this section without any discussion on the talk page. --RevolverOcelotX 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to all parties involved in the dispute, I reverted the page to a version which predates the current edit war between yourself and RevolverOcelotX. The version you are referring to occured in the middle of the edit war. I'd appreciate it if you and the other parties involved could come to a consensus using the talk page before making any further changes. Edit wars are disruptive, and while it may be satisfying to repeatedly revert the edits of someone you don't agree with, they don't work out for anyone in the long run. Thanks. -Loren 06:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs)'s POV pushing

Greetings, I've noticed that you reverted some Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs)'s POV pushing and deletions to Misplaced Pages. See Bonafide.hustla's contributions for more details. I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to look in and give an opinion? Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) has made 3 reverts to Taiwan independence and is now repeatedly removing warnings on his talk page after being warned about it. Could you take a look at this? Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness to all those involved in the naming conventions dispute I've reverted Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese) to a version which predates the current edit war. I know it's not a perfect arrangement, but for the moment I think it's the best I can do without interfering directly in the dispute itself. I've looked at Bonafide.hustla's contributions, while it's clear that he has some very strongly held opinions, for the moment it appears to be a content dispute. Mass reversions aside, I don't see any evidence of anything resembling blatant vandalism at the moment (i.e. sockpuppetry, really blatant misinformation... etc). I think it would be better for everyone and the project in the long term if you tried first to work out your disagreements through dialogue before pursuing further escalation. This is a sensitive topic for sure, but from past experience I do think consensus is impossible. I will look into possible 3RR violations, however again, I'd stress that such blocks do not provide a long term solution. -Loren 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay look, I already went through the same scenario with this user last month on the same issue. I remove the warning because it's irrelevant since I did NOT violate 3RR. So anyway I crosspost this from my talkpage A. One is perfectly entitled to remove such warnings from his/her talkpage. An admin support my claim.] Another user removed my warning from his talkpage.]. To add to that the warnings is justified. An admin support my case. ] ] ] support from another user. Read the full length discussion on User:Bishonen talkpage under the heading User:RevolverOcelotX.

B. Even if I am not allowed to remove such warnings, the warning clearly isn't justified. According to the history of List of Chinese Americans and Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China articles, you would see Bonafide.hustla and RevolverOcelotX had both made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours 2 days ago. However, when the initial warning was placed by RevolverOcelotX I made only 1 edit to the article, making the warning totally irrelevant. He placed the warning on the ground that I BROKEN the 3RR on my user talk page after the final warning. As evident in the above discussion, an admin states that 3RR does not apply to a user's personal talkpage. The accusation is groundless. (minor difference here) Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 07:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, however please note that the intent of the 3-Revert Rule is to stop edit wars. Period. It is not an entitlement to revert three times in a 24 hour period, rather it is ment to encourage editors to try to work out a consensus through dialouge once it is clear that a dispute exists. I may have missed it but it doesn't appear that either you or RevolverOcelotX have attempted to make use of the talk page of the article in dispute. Again, I'd rather not take drastic action due to a content dispute (though I will if absolutely necessary). Please try to resolve this through dialouge on talk pages of the relevant articles. You don't have to see eye to eye, you just have to be willing to talk. -Loren 07:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) is clearly not allowed to remove those warnings. He continually removed the valid warnings after being warned not to about it. The diffs Bonafide.hustla provided are completely irrelevant and he is attempting to water down this issue. Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) clearly made 3 reverts to Taiwan independence and as such the warning is completely justified and valid. --RevolverOcelotX 07:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made Bonafide.hustla aware of the intent behind the 3RR. In the interest of finding an amicable solution to this dispute, let's just leave it at that for now. -Loren 07:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)