Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cjmarsicano (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 24 June 2007 (This is your moderator speaking: Defend WP:H!P against Wiki's copyright nazis.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

External Links

I erased the H!P University link at the Morning Musume article because it requires people to register on the site, which is a kind of link you need to avoid according to Misplaced Pages:External_links. But on Ikimasshoi's and Hello! Online's case, I still don't know whether we should erase them from the list or not. Eugh jei 11:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Thank you for the correction anyway. :) Eugh jei 10:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

About H!P University

It's entirely at your discretion to delete the H!P University link. If it's advised by Misplaced Pages that sites requiring registration should be avoided, we won't contest that. However I take this opportunity to clarify that H!P University does not charge a subscription fee, all personal information such as e-mail addresses is not used with spam purposes or newsletters, and is an organization which seeks no lucre.

Thanks for your attention to the matter, Shiroguma 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV Request

Thank you for making a report about 69.76.220.212 (talk · contribs · block log) on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Edits by 69.76.220.212 do not appear to be vandalism. Controversial edits, perhaps, but not vandalism -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Thanks for the tip Momusufan 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comprising/ Is Comprised Of

You reverted my edit here where I changed "is comprised of" into "comprising". These sites all agree with me: and and the list goes on. This issue doesnt warrant a section on US's talk page, but I thought I should give you my reasoning before I change it again. If you'd like, I'll change it to read "federal constitutional republic that comprises 50 states...", but the current form of "comprised of" is not standard English, and as such should be changed. Alcemáe 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for the help in cleaning up the evil done to my page. I can now go outside. the_undertow 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• just replied to your user talk page, hope you got it Momusufan 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• An excellent suggestion to an increasing dilemma. Auburnpilot has protected me from the evils of those who wish to destroy me. <-- That was really dramatic. the_undertow 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note about use page warnings

Users are well within their rights to remove messages from their talk pages. Please don't revert such edits, and certainly don't follow it up with a threat of a block. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I had no idea, well now I know. Thanks for the tip Momusufan 19:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked back in my own contributions but I would bet that I learned about this policy the exact same way you did. Your heart's in the right place and now you know something new. You did alright, Momusufan! :) --ElKevbo 20:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If it makes you feel any better, Momusufan, I don't think it was clarified that it was okay until fairly recently. I know for a while I thought it was against policy, too. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Durham

Thanks for reverting that spam, I've reported User:SydGraham on AIV for persistent spamming. Cheers, DWaterson 00:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Xcv47x

Thank you for making a report about Xcv47x (talk · contribs · block log) on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Sandstein 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Buddhism

Your edit in the Japan article is a little odd. You do realize that Japan doesn't have much of an interaction with China until after the 8th cent. and even then the interaction for Japan to the outside world is a mix between Korea and China. In the 16th cent. Japan still considered Korea a good source of technology and ideas of the bigger world cause of Korea's proximity to Japan. It seems odd to keep excluding or negating Korea from existence when it comes to Japan's ancient history. I'm going to delete that entire sentence cause we can't seem to agree on whether Korea and China contributed to Japan's buddhism or ONLY China contributed to Japan's buddhism. Or I will add that both Korea and China contributed to Japanese buddhism. Thanks --Tyler 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing

I noticed that you seem to have drawn the ire of User:TingMing with some of your edits. Without attacking him (since it's not what we do around here), you might consider posting your thoughts on his arbitration case. There's already a final decision in progress, but I think any further thoughts you may wish to share would be considered. Cheers --Folic Acid 11:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit to the sandbox

Recently, you reverted a user's changes to the sandbox which is all well and good. Unfortunately, you labeled that user's changes as vandalism. I think one would be hard-pressed to suggest that changes to the sandbox are vandalism, especially since we typically encourage users to 'have at it', as it were, in the sandbox. In fact, if you check out most series of the vandalism warning templates, the first one or two all tell users to go play in the sandbox. :-) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

the last edit, someone put up a speedy deletion template on the page, but I get what you mean. Momusufan 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, but I don't really think there's any danger that an admin, seeing that page on the list for speedy deletion, would actually delete the page, do you? At the same time, where is a user who wishes to test that template (a stretch, I know) supposed to go to test it if not the sandbox? In any case, I think that's enough said on this. I just didn't want a newbie to think you were biting when you reverted that edit as vandalism. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PSP 802.11

Hi - I've left a further message on the user's talk page, and reverted the latest edit, as it made the article inconsistent (text of article change but still had ref which conflicted with the claim). If further violations of 3RR and WP:CIVIL take place, a brief block of the user may be the only reasonable action. --Oscarthecat 20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

fair enough, discussing it is better anyway. and he left a message on your talk page as well. Momusufan 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What I do not understand is why you feel the need to "correct" information that you have zero first hand knowledge of. Believe it or not, often times information in specifications is not always kept up to date.

Let me explain to you something about the IEEE 802.11b/g/n protocol. It was designed in such a way that if you have a later version then it is always backwards compatible with the previous protocols and you would never even notice. I admit, from what I can tell Sony has not officially said that the PSP is 802.11g, they just updated the firmware. You might be asking... Why have not more people noticed this? And to answer that I give you my theory... Most people have set up their network connections a long time ago and are not continuously checking their connection rate. Assuming they had an 802.11g WAP, when they updated their firmware, their PSP would be connecting automatically at 802.11g but they would have no idea that it is unless they checked their WAP/routers wireless connections tab. There it would in fact list that the device is now 802.11g.

Like I have said before... The only reason why I know it is 802.11g is because I was mad my PSP didn't connect via WPA. When I updated the firmware WPA 2 was then an option. I checked my router/WAP to get the WPA information I needed which is in the same wireless connection tab and I was shocked to see that the PSP that was only connecting at 802.11b was now connecting at 802.11g. Had I not specifically looked at my WAP settings, I would not have seen this nor would I have ever known.

This can be verified by anyone with a PSP and later firmware. I did nothing special to my PSP and used only official Sony firmware updates. Do you want wikipedia to be accurate or do you want it consistent with outdated documentation?

198.151.12.10 23:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea

Yup, I was just looking over his edit history... --Fire Star 火星 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I will protect his talk page if he blanks it again. --Fire Star 火星 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hello:) Just to let you know you took someones legit comments off my talk page. Please be more careful next time. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Its okay:) I do not care. I myself make quite a few mistakes. Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help reverting those changes on the Baton Rouge TV stations. I appericate your help. Just to let you know, he was blocked by User:Metros for 31 hours for vandalism....probably more for the 3RR. Take Care...NeutralHomer 02:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I wrote that User:Cjerel8844 came up and revert them again. Might be the same person, I am not sure....but I have reverted those changes. *sigh*...why must they make things difficult? Take Care....NeutralHomer 02:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably is since he is vandalizing the same articles as the IP address did. Momusufan 02:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked User:Metros is he would partial protect the pages in question. So, I thank you again for your help. - NeutralHomer 02:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, he was indef blocked by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (awesome name). Take Care and Thanks again....NeutralHomer 02:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No Problem :) Momusufan 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage too! Looks like some dude hates me for whatever reason. Kariteh 07:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Japan

I'm not sure if you checked the Talk page, but there's been some active debate there alongside the edits to the actual article. Consensus seems to be building against inclusion of the controversial "great power" statement in the intro. Adlerschloß 05:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, only a few people have left feedback so far. You cannot get consensus from that - to claim you do is to subvert the whole point of wikipedia. The version I had was consensus because it was up for so long. John Smith's 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I reverted it back to your's. Momusufan 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your anti-vandalism work at wikipedia. Keep it up! James, La gloria è a dio 03:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You :) Momusufan 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You earned it:)--SJP 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

DO you have a IRC client? There is a good IRC recent changes channel on IRC.--Sir James Paul 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your congrats! It's a nice feeling to be asked to do something :). ck lostsword • T • C 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There you go - a brief protection should deter them. ck lostsword • T • C 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Momusufan 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning Templates

Hey, you recently left a message on user 204.39.240.3 -http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:204.39.240.3 If you find a vandal, please use a template to warn them. Here is the wiki page for vandalism- http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:VAN . Also, since the user had a final warning, you can report him to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism . This way they will get blocked for their disruptions. Note- I have already reported that user, he has now a 3 month block. HIt me up on my talk page if you need anything. Warrush 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do notice some users say that they have reported the vandal on their talk pages, so I kind of took up doing that sometimes, and yes I am aware of using warn templates when they commit vandalism or another offense. Momusufan 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

71.64.136.169

Wow, somebody's a persistent little devil. And finally blocked! Good job reverting those edits. —Travis 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Vandal Fighter

You are becoming quite a good vandal fighter. You are fast for a new wikipedian and you are accurate. keep it up. Cheers!--†Sir James Paul† 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It's all in a days work. lol Momusufan 04:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Achillest

I've reported him and the other sockpuppet, Richard neer at ANI. Both should hopefully be shut down soon. :) -Ebyabe 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, they pretty much always get indef blocked. But sadly, he never seems to tire of creating new ones. But I've appointed myself official Ron liebman sockpuppet watcher, so as fast as he creates them, I report them and they get blocked. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. :) -Ebyabe 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to keep certain people away. Momusufan 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Ron Liebman Defense Cadre. One of these days, I might send an e-mail to the actual SABR member of that name and tell him that someone is taking his name in vain. That might backfire if it really is him. That's why I haven't done it yet. Baseball Bugs 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I sent the actual Ron Liebman a note just now, alerting him to this constant vandalism by his impostor. I'll let you know what happens. I am not acquainted with the actual Mr. Liebman, but I might be soon. :) Baseball Bugs 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's to wondering what he will say. Momusufan 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I reported that new one to Ebyabe, who has turned it over to an admin for attention. That one guy is bizarre. Baseball Bugs 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be from New York City as he is operating out of the New York Public Library --> "A vandal operating primarily out of the New York City public library open computer terminals, this vandal has impersonated members of baseball statistics organizations and inserted unsourced and false information into numerous baseball-related articles. Case primarily known as Ron liebman (talk · contribs) but real name unknown." Momusufan 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just remember not to let Ron and his sockpuppets get to you. He's made all sorts of snide comments to me and I just ignore them, considering the source. I refuse to descend to that level, so's I can maintain the moral high-ground, doncha know. I mean, I could comment on what I think his issues are, but that wouldn't be civil. Comprendes-voulez-vouz? :) -Ebyabe 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand. It's better to ignore such people anyway and not show how you really feel. Momusufan 19:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Yo. That guy vandalizing the Brian Mcleod page, I made a case about him. See Misplaced Pages: Suspected sock puppets/68.221.255.121‎ if you'd like to help. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 02:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears he's already blocked now. Momusufan 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

talk page vandal

thank you for fixing my talk page from that vandal. Until(1 == 2) 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your moderator speaking: Defend WP:H!P against Wiki's copyright nazis.

Folks,

Sorry for the mass posting, but with the copyright nazis breathing down our necks we have to defend the work we've been putting in. Please fully attribute and rationalize all images we post to H!P articles so that we can keep the copyright nazis (who don't seem to contribute to any Wiki articles at all) away for good, and do not hesitate to defend against these pricks.

Also, please keep me informed via my talk page or via e-mail (minimoniotaku@gmail.com) if these copyright nazis start hassling you to look for "free" images (that don't exist) of our heroines. They claim that no image is better than a non-free image, I say that's a lame cop-out.

And finally, if anyone knows a good copyright or US Constitutional Law legal expert that can give us some pro bono advice on these matters, have them get in touch with me. --User talk:Cjmarsicano 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)